On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 19:22 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 18:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> The current thinking seems to be to just ignore them* but this is > >> guaranteed to result in a lot of confusion. When end users do a > >> distribution upgrade via yum or Anaconda, some of the packages might not > >> have been updated to the Fedora 7 version due to incorrect packaging or > >> other issues while the rest are packages which are deliberated not > >> rebuild to avoid churn. Debugging a end user system with such a mix of > >> packages is very painful. > >> > >> I would suggest that we consider rebuilding just to avoid the confusion. > >> I consider that a good enough "technical reason". The advantage of less > >> churn in packages is lost quickly since packages receive updates fairly > >> quickly in general. > > > > If packages receive updates fairly quickly, then why are there still > > packages in devel that have .fc6 as the disttag in the repo? I find > > your assertion to have empirical evidence to the contrary. > > Note that I said that packages in Fedora gets updates in general > quickly. Not that all packages get updates. If every package got updates > then we wouldn't need to have a discussion at all about this. So let's > not side track and see if we can have some consensus on the approach > that we need to take on packages with fc6 in their names. Ok fine. So you have roughly 1294 packages in the Extras devel repo that carry the .fc6 disttag, and 54 in rawhide. You're proposing that all of these be rebuilt? How would you forsee this happening? Each maintainer rebuilds their package, or a small group does all of them, or? josh -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
