On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 10:28:25AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Hi all! > > /me is a bit puzzled > > On "28 Jan 2008 22:14:47 -0700" kernel-2.6.23.14-64.fc7 was shipped as > update: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-announce/2008-January/msg00968.html > > Some minutes ago on "02 Feb 2008 02:01:59 -0700" kernel-2.6.23.14-60.fc7 > was shipped as update: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-announce/2008-February/msg00061.html Just wanted to report the same thing, glad it's not just me that thinks 60<64. ;) AFAIK, -60 wasn't even a test release, or was it (???). BTW FC6 was the last release to send test update notificatiopn to fedora-test, this seems to have been discontinued since F7. Not a Good Think IMHO. > $ rpmdev-vercmp 2.6.23.14-64.fc7 2.6.23.14-60.fc7 > 0:2.6.23.14-64.fc7 is newer > > Epochs involved? No doesn't look like it: > rpm -qp kernel-2.6.23.14-60.fc7.i686.rpm --qf '%{EPOCH}\n' > > Was is 2.6.23.14-64.fc7 revoked? Never shipped properly? Ohh, no, some > servers carry it: > http://ftp.stw-bonn.de/pub/fedora/linux/updates/7/i386/kernel-2.6.23.14-64.fc7.i686.rpm > http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/updates/7/i386/kernel-2.6.23.14-64.fc7.i686.rpm > > /me wonders how long the letter will remain there > > Bodhi error? I thought we had one-way upgrade paths checks in the compilation tools. At least if several candidates are available the tools are supposed to pick the latest, right? Several things look like having gone south for this to happen. Is it now possible to track down the path the "older" package went on to show up at the wrong place, so we can find and squash the bugs? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpLSNsdbK9sA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
