On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 08:41:17PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 06:48:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >"Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)" <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve: > >>> rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by exim-4.69-12.fc12.x86_64 > > > >> I had the same on F11, building in a Rawhide mock. > > > >> I was advised to update rpm to 4.7.1 that was in updates-testing, > >> which fixed the problem. > > > >[ consults CVS... ] So XZ support in F-11's rpm is less than a week > >old, there is *no* support in F-10, and we're already requiring > >the capability in order to do useful development work? > > > >All I can say is WTF. > > Did you have a better plan for migrating to an XZ payload for F12 in time > for Alpha? IMHO there should be a much larger window between providing an new feature in RPM, and requiring it for development. eg, new features should go into RPM in rawhide & F11 at least 2-3 months before we require them. Yes this would have required XZ support to be merged much sooner in the F12 schedule, or alternatively merge XZ support in F12, but don't use it till F13. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
