2009/6/14 Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On 06/15/2009 12:09 AM, Sharpe, Sam J wrote: >> 2009/6/14 Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> On 06/15/2009 12:06 AM, Sharpe, Sam J wrote: >>> >>>> So, the outcome is that there are genuine packages in F11 that are >>>> tagged as fc10 - I can check more cases if you are still not sure. >>> >>> I am sure there are but the examples you gave out earlier weren't valid. >>> That's all. >> >> You're confused - I came into the conversation late and didn't give >> any examples - must have been the OP ;o) > > Sorry. Misspoke. The examples given out by Martin wasn't and you > questioned whether a Fedora 11 version of unique existed. It does. I think the real learning point here is that people who try removing all fc10 packages are going to be in trouble... An F10-F11 preupgrade will leave some (unique, ntp, ntp-perl etc.) where the updated F10 version is higher than F11 and there are some that should genuinely be in F11 because they don't have an equivalent F11 build yet. I just did an automatic --nodeps removal of all my .fc10 packages followed by a yum install of the same packages and I certainly have some still tagged as fc10, but I guess all this will change when Mr Keating fixes all those failed F11 builds in koji against his name ;o) -- Sam -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
