Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Jon Steffan schrieb: > >> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> >>> Jon Steffan schrieb: >>> >>>> Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 11/28/06, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 01:25:50PM -0700, Jon Steffan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I've been pushing updates to plone and zope and would like to get >>>>>>> FC4 updated [...] >>>>>>> >>>> So this thread has seemed to die. Who am I supposed to ask for approval >>>> for a new package? I really want to see 'stable' plone and zope in FC4. >>>> >>> Zope and Plone were shipped for FC4 afaics. So according to >>> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/EOL >>> it's just fine to build updates for FC4 if there is a good reason for >>> the update. >>> >> The issue is that current (plone 2.1.2) will not migrate to the >> newest version correctly. So, I can just dump in an update. It will >> break sites. >> > > Okay, sorry, I missed that info from the beginning of this thread (would > have been good if that would have been included again, but never mind). > Hmm, well, I don't think it makes much sense to ship the two in packages > with different names in FC-4 then -- people would have to install/update > them manually and I bet most people won't do that (they could/should > update to a complete new FC release in that case in any way). > > But if people really disagree with the my evaluation of the issue let's > just ship the packages with different names after FESCo approved the > branches and a review happened. > > CU > thl > > Ok. The other issue is that fc4->fc5+ will fail an upgrade for plone. What should I look at doing for solving this issue? Just find the latest zope and plone that the current packages will migrate to and leave it at that? This will not ensure that upgrades would work indefinitely, but would at least get them working for the time being. Jon -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
