On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 02:58:45PM +0000, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 9:54 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon <pingou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 06, 2018 at 03:33:44PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 07:35:00PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > >> So please let us just repeal that "Rawhide can never go backwards" > > >> policy. > > > > > > This is actually a fair point, but I wonder what prevents us from > doing it > > > today. > > > > Technically, nothing. This is purely a policy issue. > > I'd be curious if there isn't more than just this, or if someone > remembers why > that policy was created. > > I *think* that the reason for Rawhide not being able to go backwards is > simple RPM limitations; if people have updated their system with rawhide > packages and encounter a serious bug, if we just roll the updates repo > back to the previous working package, the people who upgraded to it have > no *automatic* way forwards. > Though, I suppose we could perhaps implement this policy if we > special-cased (or simply encouraged) people on Rawhide to use distro-sync > instead of simple update. > But that has its own issues. Sorry, just to be clear, what would have its own issues: - asking rawhide users to use distro-sync instead of update? - automatically have dnf detect it's running in rawhide and default to distro-sync instead of update? - or.. ? Random stupid question, what does update bring in addition to distro-sync? Is one more cpu/memory/bandwidth expensive than the other? Thanks, Pierre _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
