On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 20:20 -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote: > On Saturday 20 February 2010 06:03:28 pm Braden McDaniel wrote: > > I guess I should properly read the headings... I guess I misunderstood > > where this was going from your summary. > > > > If I understand it correctly, it's telling me that a F12 that hasn't > > been updated will have problems being upgraded to F13. Certainly that's > > not ideal; but it doesn't strike me as exactly tragic, either. How > > important is this considered, generally? > > > > I'm not crystal clear on why this is broken, either. It may have > > something to do with the fact that the openvrml binary RPM changed to > > being a metapackage; but the implication of Boost is a bit confounding. > > The ratio of "badness" to the difficulty of fixing it is fairly high. Fixing > it is fairly trivial. Leaving it broken breaks upgrades for users who upgrade > distributions using yum update -- which, though it isn't supported, is > reasonably common. I'm happy to fix it if I can figure out what's broken. > The solution varies somewhat depending on how broken it is; I'll try to > describe all possible problems / solutions. There's going to be a lot of text > here, but nothing hard to do. > > If the F-12 package has a higher Epoch than the F-13 package, this is *very* > broken, but can be fixed by bumping the F-13 Epoch to at least the F-12 Epoch. That's not it. > If the F-12 package has a higher Version than the F-13 package and the same > Epoch, this is probably broken. Also not it. > If the F-12 package has the same-or-lower Epoch and the same version, but a > higher Release, then a couple things may be wrong: Nope. > I think that's everything. Let me know if you have any questions, or if I'm > wrong ;). I'm afraid I'm still at a loss. -- Braden McDaniel <braden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
