On Fr November 2 2007, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:40:53 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > > Why isn't the same update built also for F8?
> >
> > I did not say, that the update is not built for F8, but it will be in F8
> > updates-testing and not in F8.
>
> Where do you see a broken upgrade path then?
>
> The upgrade path ends with:
>
> ... F8 + F8 updates + F8 updates-testing --> rawhide
>
> An EVR upgrade in F8 updates-testing can only break the path to
> rawhide, not the path to older dists.
Here is an example from the report:
Zim
F7-updates-testing > F8 (0:0.21-1.fc7 > 0:0.19-1.fc7)
Zim-0.21-1.fc7 is in F7 updates-testing but the version in F8 is older. Btw.
there is already a request to add Zim-0.21-1.fc8 to F8 updates-testing.
> How do you know that the script will report a broken upgrade path in
> that case? We don't have a 2nd testing repo yet. Skimming over the
> part of the code, all that should matter is that the F8 test-update
> has a higher EVR than the F7 test-update. In short: packages in the
> dist '8' repo family must have a pkg EVR that is '>=' than the EVR of
> pkgs in the dist '7' repo family.
It seemed to me, that we discuss here, how we would like the script to behave.
Btw. imho there should be a warning when a stable package in F7 is evr-higher
than a stable package in F8, even when there is a newer package in
F8-updates-testing.
Regards,
Till
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
