2009-08-24 - 16:00 UTC - Fedora QA meeting Recap

[Michael Schwendt]

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:53:25 -0400, James wrote:

> > > Have you been in touch with Will directly on these points?
> > 
> > No. Is all of this talked about only in private mail or behind other
> > curtains? IRC/hallways/meetings only? No public mailing-list?
> > I used to be a subscriber of fedora-qa-list but it has been shut
> > down very early. Recent documents point to fedora-test-list instead.
> 
> Hmm, no ... discussion on autoqa has been very public.  Come join an
> upcoming QA meeting (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings) if
> you'd like to take

[IRC] meetings without prior communication often are a waste of time.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA  explicitly points at this list, so
that's what I used for my comments.

> There are currently repoclosure and conflicts tests running against
> rawhide (and release repo's).  Do these capture the obsoletes issue you
> hilight?

What I see on
 https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/autoqa-results/2009-August/date.html
in the "repoclosure" reports is many false positives.
Stock repoclosure from yum-utils does not implement anything that
evaluates Obsoletes tags.

The "conflicts" reports look much more promising. At least I recognise
several of the conflicts. I think I will compare some of them with the
output of my old i386 script,
  http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/confcheck-remote-split2.py 
or take a look at the source code to find out whether we can focus
on one implementation.

Sometimes packagers create conflicts deliberately (by pushing a partial
set of upgrades) and are annoyed if they receive [semi-]automated bug
reports in bugzilla. Several of the found issues have been reported in
bugzilla a long time ago. Just finding the conflicts is mostly fruitless
as long as packagers need not fix them.

> What might you implement in order to capture the obsoletes
> issue?

http://yum.baseurl.org/ticket/176