On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 03:59:23 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > And rest assured, "dropping very old obsoletes" isn't controversial in
> > general.
>
> Oh sure it is! I don't understand why it's recommended practice to do this.
> I see absolutely no benefit in removing any Obsoletes. It only breaks things
> for people who skip more releases at a time than we expect them to
> (currently 1, i.e. upgrading from n-2 to n, no more) and doesn't fix or
> improve anything.
>
> IMHO, Obsoletes should be kept forever
Forever? Too extreme IMO. Just because a single user might want to upgrade
Red Hat Linux 3.0.3 to Fedora 18, is no reason to keep very old ("ancient")
Obsoletes in packages forever. Okay, okay, not RHL 3.0.3, let's say RHL
7.3 or 9. ;-)
> by default (where "by default" means
> "unless there's a concrete reason to remove the Obsoletes",
A concrete reason: Package names (including short-lived subpackages and
Obsoletes inherited from obsolete subpackages), which have not been used
anymore for a couple of years (e.g. two years), are irrelevant with regard
to the upgrade paths we _try to_ support.
We also try to get rid of old cruft in virtual Provides and Conflicts, btw.
Just recently, I've seen a developer give up supporting C89 in a program's
source code. ;-)
--
Fedora release 19 (Rawhide) - Linux 3.9.0-0.rc1.git0.4.fc19.x86_64
loadavg: 0.07 0.14 0.41
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
