On Thu, 2012-04-19 at 17:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > AFAICS the real problem here is that an update got unpushed. It seems > > like Richard got the 64-bit version of libvirt -3 installed, then the -3 > > update got unpushed, then something wanted to install the 32-bit version > > of libvirt. Obviously, since the update had been unpushed, it was > > impossible to find the matching 32-bit version. > > > > As long as updates can be unpushed, that one can pop up. > > Oh, so this is yet another example of fallout from the braindead decision to > enable updates-testing by default for Branched. Um...no? The case listed *below* would be, but updates-testing doesn't seem particularly relevant to the above case. If updates-testing didn't exist at all, you'd still have the potential of this problem happening if updates could be unpushed. > > The other classic case where we get a lot of this (and similar errors) > > is when we push the fedora-release update which disables > > updates-testing; people have the 64-bit version of something installed > > from updates-testing, then they need to have the 32-bit version > > installed, but now updates-testing is disabled... > > And that's the other reason why that decision is broken. > > updates-testing should NEVER be on by default. There is no expectation of > upgrade path in updates-testing (whereas there is one even in Rawhide!), so > enabling it by default is very broken. Yes and no. It's 'very broken' in the sense that we know it can cause a bit of this kind of pain for people who install pre-releases and update them to final releases. However, we're perfectly aware of the general sorts of issues the process can cause and consider them to be an acceptable trade-off for the considerable _benefits_ of having updates-testing enabled by default (lots more testing of the packages). We really mean the whole thing about pre-releases eating babies, and this is just one instance of that. If you're not prepared to do a bit of yum handholding to work around issues like this now and again, you have no business installing a pre-release of Fedora. I'm not sure it's practically possible to make that *not* the case. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
