On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 18:33 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 11:21 -0700, Andrew Farris wrote:
> > I think one big reason to push it back to f8 would be the improved
> > skip-broken handling for multiple arches.. specifically where one of
> > the packages gets skipped but its match in the other architecture is
> > not skipped. People can run into some major problems updating with
> > x64 systems that only have some of the matching i386 packages on them.
>
> I've been using yum from git head on F8 for a few weeks now without
> problems.
Yeh, well I've been running git HEAD on Fed-8 for like 6 months ... and
for the vast majority of the time it rarely shows problems in normal
usage.
Not that I'm against putting 3.2.13 into Fed-8 at some point, but it
might be nice to have it in rawhide for a few weeks first :)
I mean the diff stats from 3.2.8 to 3.2.13 are:
63 files changed, 26159 insertions(+), 3731 deletions(-)
...now admittedly about 20,000 lines of additions there are translations
for the new i18n support ... but we are also seeing bugs on that
support. Fed-8 _is_ supposed to be a stable version.
Plus it's _very_ easy to upgrade to the yum version in rawhide on
Fed-8[1], and the two things I see people asking for in this thread are:
1. goes faster.
2. skip broken handling.
...neither of which seem worth any significant risk of putting a newer
yum into Fed-8 quickly (in fact the later problem should just not be
happening in Fed-8, IMNSHO).
[1] yum install pygpgme && yum --enablerepo=development update yum\*
Anyone should feel free to promote this for the people who want to
experience the future now, with all the caveats that implies.
--
James Antill <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fedora
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
