John Reiser wrote: > Bill Nottingham wrote: >> Panu Matilainen (pmatilai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: >>> So, should I bother with a RPM 4.7 feature page or not? > >> - does it change the output package format in any way that would >> make packages unreadable by prior versions? > > If the output package format is not 100% usable by previous versions of rpm > (all the way back to the rpm that was in the original Fedora 9 release) > then such a change is forbidden without explicit migration and > compatibility features. This seems a little too strict to me when taken with the fact that we've already broken output package format between rawhide and F10-GA's rpm. The bar for doing that might not have been placed correctly but I think it's unreasonable to say 4.7 can't get in if it is no more incompatible than that decision. Unless explicit migration and compatibility features encompass the requirements and limitations placed on the larger hash feature (such as, you must go from F-9 to F-10 in order to use preupgrade, etc). -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
