On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 11:07 AM Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 21:35 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > Perhaps related, on an upgraded Fedora 30 system I see > > ghostscript-fonts-5.50-37.fc27.noarch, which does not appear on any > > clean installed systems, and also can't be installed (Error: Unable to > > find a match ). That tells me it's been dropped or is obsolete, so is > > it normal for such packages to persist through upgrades? > > Sure, very common. Packages are frequently retired and not formally > obsoleted by anything else: in this case, if you have them installed, > they'll stay installed until some dependency issue crops up and you > have to remove them manually (or use --allowerasing) to clear it up. And does gnome-software do --allowerasing, or equivalent? Or other behavior? > > Some people don't see any problem with this, personally it drives me > crazy and I wish it were policy that *every* retired package must be > obsoleted. But it isn't. Not obsoleting retired packages is arguably inconsistent with the Workstation PRD: "Upgrading the system multiple times through the upgrade process should give a result that is the same as an original install of Fedora Workstation." I understand that is a goal, not a policy or release criterion. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
