On Thursday, 26 February 2009 at 20:38, seth vidal wrote: > 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. I have F-10 on my netbook, but obviously it's too underpowered to build packages on comfortably. My main desktop is F-9, because I don't have time to upgrade it. > And if they can't be for whatever reason it's not crazy for them > to run it in a xen There's no Xen dom0 for F-9. > or kvm instance. And KVM requires hardware support for virtualization. Any other suggestions? Regards, R. -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
