On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:42:09 -0700, TK (Toshio) wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:24:58PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On 7/26/11 1:14 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > Yes, It got untagged. See last week's thread on this list: > > > Subject: rpm builds failing with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found" > > > > I thought there was a hard rule about not having nvrs go backwards, and > > if a bad build was put out, it should be fixed with epoch or other such > > NVR things to make sure the upgrade path continues. (that is once a > > build makes it out in the nightly repos) > > > Yep. You are correct. If I'm doing proper forensics of fesco meeting notes > and tickets and google searches of the wiki, this policy was approved twice > by fesco but didn't get documented either time: > > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/96 > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20090313 > > The original proposal fell out of the no frozen rawhide FAD if I remember > correctly. Ticket 96 is very imprecise, unfortunately. There is a big difference between "a package going backwards in its EVR and staying there" and "a package getting untagged because it breaks koji buildroot and with the plan to go forward in EVR as soon as the bug is found and fixed". In this case, the bad rpm-build broke koji builds, and since Rawhide may eat babies, it can happen that Rawhide users need downgrade manually while they have to wait for the fixed rpm-build. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
