On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 07/03/2014 01:42 AM, William wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-07-02 at 20:40 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>> On 07/02/2014 06:55 PM, William wrote:
>>>
>>>> First of all, I'd like to formally propose that each of the
>>>> products will have a fedora-release-$PRODUCT (and
>>>> corresponding generic-release-$PRODUCT) package. This package
>>>> will meet several needs (with magical hand-waving in this
>>>> initial email).
>>>
>>> How will this work with fedup from 20 to 21? Will there be
>>> multiple upgrade targets?
>>>
>> Why would that be necessary? All packages are in one repository,
>> so fedora-release-$PRODUCT will be upgraded to the next version
>> and everything will be fine.
>
> My machine doesn't currently have a fedora-release-$PRODUCT
> package installed. So how will fedup work out what one to put on my
> system? Will these packages be added to 20, and the user need to
> preinstall before fedup?
>
It won't put one on your system. Upgrades from a non-Productized
Fedora will remain non-Productized. It's not *less* Fedora than before.
The Products are basically a statement that "this minimal set of
packages and services are available on the system". A non-productized
Fedora install is essentially just a continuation of the classic
do-it-yourself approach that Fedora has been up to this point.
That's misleading. Fedora hasn't been releasing "do-it-yourself"
releases. Our previous install images were composed and tested by QA,
including testing fedup upgrades from the previous release. With
Fedora.next, we don't have an install image that is an equivalent of
<= F20.
Perhaps I have missed them, but I've seen no discussion or plans
around testing upgrades to F21 from F20. Unless the Products intend
to test upgrading from F20, and/or QA intends to somehow test fedup
from F20 to F21 in a non-product manner, we're essentially changing
the semantics of upgrades. I agree it should still work, but saying
it's a continuation of existing practice when it isn't is wrong.
josh