On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 12:36:13 +0200
Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
> Again, you're extrapolating way too far from a single problem case.
> The problem is simply that we have the xorg-x11-drivers metapackage
> which requires every single X driver and is in the critpath.
> There's various ways we could adjust this so it's no longer the
> case. It's hardly something that renders an entire policy invalid.
Another example for how the critical path policy breaks things:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/firstboot-1.113-4.fc14
This update adds support for xfwm4 and openbox to the firstboot code.
Updates for those 2 window managers:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xfwm4-4.6.2-2.fc14
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openbox-3.4.11.2-4.fc14
which add the virtual firstboot(windowmanager) Provides have already
been pushed to stable! So now we have 2 WMs satisfying firstboot's
dependencies, but not actually supported by its code. The result: the
Xfce and LXDE spins will be outright BROKEN. (And it's not my fault,
I only did the firstboot build and update requests, the other 2
packages were pushed by cwickert.)
Xfce at least will not be. ;)
I have not been able to do an install and test firstboot here yet, but
I can over the weekend. The Xfce update does not much in the end
though, so I don't think it's at all urgent.
I CANNOT push the firstboot update which UNBREAKS those 2 spins
because of the update policy. So instead of preventing breakage, the
policy CAUSES breakage! How can it fail more spectacularly for you to
finally realize it's a failure?
Is there any way you could try to not be such a negative ball of
energy? I suppose not.
To all proventesters: please +1 that update, EVEN IF YOU HAVEN'T
TESTED IT, we need to get out of this impasse!
Please don't.
Please test the updates properly and add karma when you have.
kevin