On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Wed, 2008-12-10 at 18:51 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:48:04PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > >Why is this not fair? The technical facts on FC10 speak for themselves: > > >Rawhide and Fedora's release procedures as means for "Fedora release > > >preparation testing" don't work out. > > > > Examples of this? > > Some random examples, which I have been hit myself: You're forgetting gdm-setup in your list which is now AFAIK unavailable since F9 for a similar reason. > PackageKit: A trouble area of its own. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469293 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469324 > IMO, PackageKit is too immature and has been prematurely rushed out. Simply +1 > Besides the numerous NEVR issues between Fedora release, which FC10 (as > usual) suffers from, this time another kind of repo screw up took place: > > updates/10 contains packages with an older NEVR than Everything and > Fedora, e.g.: Why doesn't the nice bodhi perform version checks to the packages before it accepts them, whether e.g. the upgrade path F8 -> F9 -> F10 and so on is guaranted? Or would that be too much work somehow or to somebody? IMHO this is something really needed. AFAIK glibc in Fedora 10 is still newer than in Rawhide currently. Greetings, Robert -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
