Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote : > On Friday, 06 July 2007 at 03:37, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Why are updates lingering in updates-testing for weeks when: > > * they are known broken and/or > > * they have already been replaced by a new version, which is already in > > stable? > > IMHO, that's really what the "unpush" option is for. For example, do we > > really need to have that obsolete Thunderbird RC sitting in testing > > forever when the actual release is already out in the stable updates? > > This also makes it harder to track down the legitimate updates which have > > been sitting in testing for way too long. > > This is exactly the kind of thing that should be automated, i.e. run a > script once a week that'd check if there are any obsolete updates in > testing and delete them (notifying the owner perhaps). Removing packages from updates-testing which have newer releases in updates-stable makes sense, but removing "broken" updates from updates-testing might be more of a problem, since it then removes the most recent version of a package, thus theoretically introduces the possibility of breaking update paths for users of the repo, or (possibly worse?) of leaving those users with a broken piece of software for a long time... Pushing fixed packages to testing-updates seems like the right thing to do... Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) - Linux kernel 2.6.21-1.3228.fc7 Load : 0.68 1.53 1.84 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
