On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 06:45 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Bradley Baetz wrote: > > A lot of them were zero-day 'new package didn't make the freeze so chuck > > it in ASAP' updates. Again, you can argue that new packages don't break > > anything, but it comes back to the 'what is fedora's goal' discussion > > that happens whenever this discussion happens.... > > But why do you want to ban something which doesn't hurt? I agree with this, much like new drivers in the kernel I think you have to decide that new packages are different from real updates. > What will happen with your proposed ban is that many users will > use --enablerepo=rawhide to get the packages they need and break their > systems that way (one should NEVER use --enablerepo=rawhide except to > upgrade the ENTIRE system to Rawhide (yum --enablerepo=rawhide upgrade), > and that carries the usual Rawhide risks). It is not possible to just > install an arbitrary package from Rawhide because that will in many cases > depend on other packages from Rawhide (right now it's Python 2.6, sometimes > it's a new OpenSSL, OpenLDAP or whatever core library), and upgrading those > in turn also forces the upgrade of everything else depending on those (e.g. > if the upgrade drags in Python 2.6, it will also drag in all the other > Python stuff including yum!). That's not true, I've used that all the time (I was testing the new PK versions on Fedora 9 for months using that method) ... although obviously when a glibc/python/whatever update happens and yum wants to bring in 666 other packages, you want to say no at the prompt. -- James Antill <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
