On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 11:03 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > 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. +1, this should be only temporary breakage, although the fix is unfortunately not there yet. -- Tomas Mraz No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back. Turkish proverb -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
