On 9/6/05, Michael Wiktowy <mwiktowy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > What I am asking is if it is worth it for me to take the time to gather > all the proper version info, track down the exact dependency and file a > bug in bugzilla eventhough that upgrade path is unsupported (presumably > meaning that no bugs showing up using that method will be fixed)? No your specific issue about yum no longer working becuase you did things in the wrong order is not bugzilla worthy. In fact that very issue should have been addressed in the evolving package building process for python packages. I won't get too deep into the technical details, but I will give you a hint. python in FC4 introduced a new requires "python(abi) = 2.4" for python modules to require. You'll notice that both yum and libxml2-python in FC4 require "python(abi) = 2.4" I'll let you slueth out exactly why the jump from python2.3 in FC3 to python2.4 in FC4 necessitated this addition. Also since this problem only occurs becuase you went off-script... I doubt its worth adding to the wikipage. Anyone following the wikipage instructions as written will not see this specific problem. > My ideal would be for yum + rpm to have an extra degree of fail safety > and *always* work; no matter what upgrade path is chosen. Bugs are bugs.... packaging bugs happen too. The specific issue with regard to python that you ran into should be taken care of in fc4+. But feel free to keep dreaming the impossible dream... fighting that unbeatable foe...bearing that unbearable sorrow...running where the brave dare not go...righting the unrightable wrong...and all that jazz. -jef"man of la mancha"spaleta -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list