> We have +1 from QA, +1 from dnf-plugin-system-upgrade maintainer, and +1 from > gnome-software maintainers (at least that's how I chose to interpret it). > There were not many responses from general audience (I hoped for some > package maintainers feedback). From my POV, we should just do it, or have it > blessed by FESCo if we want to be extra safe and correct. I would do the > former. I forgot two things. There's this quote from Kalev that's worth mentioning: > With my packager hat on, it would be great if we could get this in the > packaging guidelines as well, so that there's a canonical source that > says that obsoletes/conflicts etc must be preserved to support upgrades > across 2 releases. And also maybe make some noise in devel-announce and > in the fedora magazine so that packagers are aware that this is > something everybody needs to support. What do you think about pushing this into packaging guidelines? Second, I'd like to highlight that gnome-software is not going to use dnf-plugin-system-upgrade, but libhif instead. So we will need to test both approaches (that's not specific to skip-release upgrades, but the combinations multiply). So this is going to need more resources in OpenQA, and possibly some more human resources when debugging issues. I'm not too happy about it, after all the effort we put into dnf-plugin-system-upgrade. Still, I think that supporting skip-release upgrades doesn't add that much overhead, and it's worth it). -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
