On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 10:39 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:33:34 +0100 > Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > It renders the primary purpose of "testing" absurd: "testing" packages > > for "updates" (testing == volatile, scratch, ... irrelevant) > > > > What matters, is packages which are being pushed from "testing" to > > "updates" containing appropriate EVRS at the very moment they are > > being pushed. > > Do you often build a package for testing, find out it works, and then > go and rebuild it /again/ with a proper nvr? I did so, once or twice, but in general, I rarely do so. > A good nevra strategy across your branches should give you the freedom > to use always good nevras for testing, so on the chance that one of > your builds is good it can just be moved and you don't have to rebuild > just to use a good nevra. No disagreement on this. But I really don't see what you gain by forcing EVRs to "updates < testing < rawhide" for "packages in testing". Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
