On Fri, 2022-01-21 at 18:20 -0500, John Mellor wrote:
Ok, so would that allowance not violate 2 of the proposed criteria:
1. * The displayed state of software or software sources must not
differ from their actual state. (E.g. an RPM package must not be
shown as installed when it is not, a repository must not be shown as
disabled or missing when it is enabled, etc).
2. * The package manager must never make the system enter an
inconsistent or unbootable state. (E.g. damage the local software
database, remove wrong system files, break the bootloader, etc).
We probably should carve out an allowance there, in fact, yeah. Kamil,
what do you think?
Or is the purpose of this document just to provide validation criteria
for the existing installer behaviour?
Yeah, as I wrote, that's the point of release criteria: they define the
most important parts of existing behaviour. We're not designing *new*
desired behaviour here.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net