On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 15:15 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:07:24AM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 16:21 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 11:41:59AM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > Of course there's a bit of chicken & egg problem here. Users won't notice > > > the speed/memusage improvements during the big update from F8 to F9 (if > > > doing a live in-place upgrade) because that will be done using the F8 > > > version of YUM. One of the interesting features of the RHN client was > > > that the first thing it did was look to see if there was an update of > > > itself, apply that and then re-exec itself to do the rest of the upgrade. > > > So the bulk of work for any package upgrade was always done with latest > > > update client. > > > > So you think we should push yum 3.2.13 (or so) back to F8? > > I'm not really in a position to make that judgement call. Depends how stable > you think the new code is - if the risk of regression is small enough, then > I'm sure the speed improvements would be welcomed. the biggest hang up is the obsoletes handling. We've fixed all the unversioned obsoletes and provides in rawhide that I know of - but we may not have fixed them in F8. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
