On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 02:51:54AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > kevin wrote: > > distro-sync is nice and all, but it's not a silver bullet. > > In cases of simple packages a downgrade may not break anything, but in > > cases where other things already built upon it, where the new one > > changed conguration or interface, or even where the upgrade changed > > data, it can leave things in a pretty unfortunate state. > > And the proposed "solution" of bumping Epoch fixes none of that. It just > introduces an Epoch that we will be stuck with forever. It will not > magically make the downgrade safe in any of the 3 situations you describe. I am unsure when I proposed Epoch's. I'm not a great fan of them either. In addition to what you mentioned, Epochs have another problem: Depending on how dependent packages (build)require your package, they must be adjusted for the new Epoch too. Anyhow, to be more clear: I don't think we can or should say "just downgrade whenever you like", unless/until dnf5 gets rid of update and only has distro-sync. Nor do I think we should rush to using Epochs. In rare cases we should go back to older versions, but it should be a discussion and other alternatives should all be exhausted first (patch the problem and push a newer update, push a revert of the problematic part, engage with upstream for a solution, etc). kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
