On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 20:43 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 09:37 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 02:29:47PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > We received a bug report that generated RPM dependencies are too > > > coarse in rawhide (#1409557). > > > > > > The bug report is correct at a technical level. But I assumed that > > > it was not a problem because partial upgrades are in rawhide are not > > > supported—it's always all-or-nothing. > > > > I think officially, we don't "support" anything but all-or-nothing > > upgrades in *all* branches. That is, if you cherry-pick an update from > > updates (or even updates-testing) and it also needs some other package > > to be upgraded even when that's not made clear from the deps, our > > stance is "oh, upgrade everything and then it will work". > > > > It might be nice to be more granular, but I think that describes the > > praxis. > > No, I don't think that's correct. The policy requires updates to be > dep-complete. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Updating_inter-dependent_packages ...but to expand on that, that's for stable releases. So far as Rawhide is concerned, historically my understanding has been the same as Florian's, we haven't ever claimed that dependencies will be so comprehensive that you can just cherry-pick packages and be sure everything will work, you have always been expected to do a full system update each time for Rawhide. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
