Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 19:59 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
>> Afaik, requests to updates-testing were not processed for F11, e.g. for
>> one or two of my new packages I requested updates-testing for F9, F10 and
>> F11 at the same time, got positive feedback / no negative feedback for F9
>> or F10 and then moved them all to stable at the same time, resp. canceled
>> the testing request for F11 and made it to a stable one. I guess this
>> affects also other packages, that were updated in F9 or F10 and F11, to
>> have a working update path from FX with updates to FX+1 with updates.
>
> Upgrade paths are a concern yes, however our upgrade path stuff is so
> busted anyway when doing upgrades to the next release that... well...
> *sigh*. Perhaps this is just a case of too many streams, and trying to
> let people do things ahead of time.
But really, what's the problem there? If the exact same package built from
the exact same specfile worked fine on F9 and F10, chances are high it'll
also work fine on F11. Of course it's not 100% as there can be things like
GCC miscompilations, bugs in libraries or screwed-up specfile conditionals,
but in general what works on Fn also works on Fm.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
