On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 13:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 13:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Yeah, it seems like F12 material. Going with a beta version of critical > >> infrastructure like RPM strikes me as sheer insanity. Or have we > >> learned nothing from how badly the still-in-progress RPM update was > >> mismanaged? These things need to be taken *slowly*. > > > I do not think the still-in-progress rpm update was mismanaged at all. > > > Back that claim up or don't make it. > > The large number of complaints seen in this mailing list over the past > week seem to me to be more than sufficient evidence that it was done > without adequate preparation or lead time. > > I'm personally still ticked off that I'm being forced to update my > development workstation to F-10 immediately in order to continue doing > useful work on rawhide packages. I don't have time for that right now. > Since F-9 is still supported, isn't it a management failing to have > allowed this to happen without a plan to make mock on F-9 work? Then you're wrong: yum update rpm\* yum\* that should be about it. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
