-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Nathanael D. Noblet wrote: > On 06/21/2009 09:14 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > >> Yes, and let me add that the ".fc10" and ".fc11" (the dist- tag) is part >> of the package "Release" value not just the package file name. >> That makes the .fc11 package "newer than" the .fc10 package >> in RPM's view, which is particularly important if internally > > > I *wish* it made a difference. I did an upgrade am an left with a host > of fc10 packages because the fc11 ones weren't considered newer. > > > For example people with updates-testing enabled on fc10 got a > non-upgraded yum because the versions were the same (except for > fc10/fc11) and it stopped working because python went from 2.5 to > 2.6.... So to RPM the fc10/fc11 isn't being compared, at least not that > I can see... > >> it really differs from the .fc10 build (e.g. in terms of compiler >> generated code, library versions, dependencies). > > It would definitely help if it did though... > This is a broken upgrade path. It's a bug with the package. However, if you're upgrading to the DVD, yes, there will be broken deps from updates-testing. Since updates-testing of F(n-1) is a moving target that can pass GA of Fn's NVR set very quickly, forcing F11 > F10 in all cases is unacceptable and would stunt releases that aren't (Rawhide - 1). - --Ben -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAko+wLsACgkQiPi+MRHG3qQp0wCfSRH0iwR13qyiV7M0m2D1mQ4g cygAnRFzK2EbUzHIGAMO+aSRNVoVDmoY =c0Ff -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
