On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:55:37AM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 03:42:02PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 08:31:18AM -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote: > > > Why can't the entire lifetime of FC6 updates be guaranteed to be < F7 > > > or future distros? > > > > Like staying on kernel 2.6.18? > > Should RPM versions be based on upstream versions? Or should we care > to make distro upgrades actually work all the time, every time? We've > already abused RPM version in kernel packages to meet the goal of RPM > upgradeability. So how about something like this? But what's better in the follwing case: foo-1.2.3-4.fc6 -> foo-1.2.3-5.fc6 (security fix in updates) foo-1.2.3-4.fc7 (iso) -> foo-1.2.3-5.fc7 (security fix in updates) An updated FC6 will carry foo-1.2.3-5.fc6 and the ISO will not offer foo-1.2.3-4.fc7 unless it is forced by anaconda (like kernels). That's a feature not a bug, as otherwise you would suddenly introduce an already fixed security issue. So in fact the non-upgrading from FC6-updates to F7-noupdates is good! -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpZXy0LArRbR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 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
