On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 11:25 -0400, Jeff Voskamp wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 10:02 -0400, Jeff Voskamp wrote: > > > >> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 09:14 -0400, Jeff Voskamp wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> FC6t2 extras has a much newer version of RT - 3.6.1 vs 3.4.5. > >>>> > >>> Yes, the version in FE6 is ca. 8 months newer, but is incompatible to > >>> 3.4.5 - Which is the reason why it is not in FE5 ;) > >>> > >>> > > > > > >> It does seem to be LSB compliant though. > >> > > > > The only major packaging difference is the FE6 version having moved it's > > html pages to /usr/share/* - Whether this qualifies it as more LSB > > compliant is arguable. It matches better into FE's preferences, that's > > true. Whether switching to this layout for the FE5 variant at this point > > in time is good idea is questionable, because it would be a major > > changes and is not unlikely to kill customizations users might have > > applied. > > > > The main incompatibility however is the db-format being used. > > The db-format being used by 3.6.1 is incompatible to 3.4.5, and > > automatically converting them is hardly possible through rpm. > > > db format is compatible, but there is some content to be added on a per > user basis - little things like > screen layout and default searches. == incompatible db-format. A 3.4.5 db won't work with 3.6.x, but a 3.6.x generated db will work with 3.4.x ;) > It's easy to tell the post-install > script we're updating the package Exactly this is not easy ... > - how do we find out the old version number? ... because of this ... and because rpm can't expect to have access to the db. Ralf -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
