On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:39:13 +1000 Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 02:21:14AM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote: > > However, given that the problematic package only appeared in Fedora > > 10 and upgrade paths are guaranteed by Fedora policy only from > > F(N-1) to F(N), I'd say that there's probably no need to fix this > > any more, since any remaining installations haven't had updates for > > ages and upgrading to a current release cleanly would require a > > clean reinstall anyway. > > true, but anyone who would have had hulahop installed at F-10 time > and did the (guaranteed) update to F11, F12, ... F15 at the right > times would still have this issue now, right? > > tbh, it seems to be corner case enough to just say "uninstall and > re-install" but nonetheless... Yes. It's just a bit hard to believe that there would be still a lot of systems suffering from this, since yum would have complained about the problem on every update, and you haven't had a single bug report about the issue in a time period of more than two years..? -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussilehtola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
