On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 02:29:23 +0300, KL (Kalev) wrote: > Bumping epoch in rpm would have made it harder for all other packages to > depend on a particular rpm version. Instead of having e.g. > Requires: rpm >= 4.9.1, they would now also have to remember the put the > correct epoch in there. Worth noting is that the rpm* packages currently are still without Epoch, and the second release of 4.9.1 has also been untagged a few days later. That would have resulted in a second Epoch bump then. > I think it's reasonable to have a broken package pulled from rawhide for > a little while, if it's going to be properly fixed up in a few days. > Yes, we should try to avoid such things, but having a hard rule here > would be counter-productive. Especially if the breakage didn't cause loss of data or severe damage on users' machines. Just rpm-build was affected, wasn't it? > Also, we have a much worse case of versions going backwards. After each > Alpha release, lots of people are going to install Branched pre-releases > and they automatically get enabled updates-testing repos. And in that > updates-testing repo, packages are often pulled out and versions go > backwards. Why is such practice allowed in Branched, but not in rawhide? Good question, IMO. ;) -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
