On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 14:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 13:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> 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. > > Oh? > > [tgl@rh2 ~]$ sudo yum update rpm\* yum\* > ... > Setting up Update Process > No Packages marked for Update > [tgl@rh2 ~]$ > > What was stated a couple days ago was that back-porting the hash changes > into pre-F10 RPM versions was completely impractical. Has that been > rethought? I'm sorry, I thought you had said F10. Not F9. In F10 it's available. And no - I don't think it is unreasonable to ask our developers and maintainers to be on something vaguely recent. And if they can't be for whatever reason it's not crazy for them to run it in a xen or kvm instance. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
