On 07/28/2011 08:48 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 03:24:58 PM Jesse Keating wrote: >> I thought there was a hard rule about not having nvrs go backwards, and >> if a bad build was put out, it should be fixed with epoch or other such >> NVR things to make sure the upgrade path continues. (that is once a >> build makes it out in the nightly repos) > > I untagged the rpm build and we do have that rule, I could have sworn that it > had only been built that day and not made it into rawhide. if i had realised > that it had made it to rawhide i would have bumped the epoch on the old build > to ensure that updating was correctly handled.
Bumping epoch in rpm would have made it harder for all other packages to depend on a particular rpm version. Instead of having e.g. Requires: rpm >= 4.9.1, they would now also have to remember the put the correct epoch in there. I think it's reasonable to have a broken package pulled from rawhide for a little while, if it's going to be properly fixed up in a few days. Yes, we should try to avoid such things, but having a hard rule here would be counter-productive. Also, we have a much worse case of versions going backwards. After each Alpha release, lots of people are going to install Branched pre-releases and they automatically get enabled updates-testing repos. And in that updates-testing repo, packages are often pulled out and versions go backwards. Why is such practice allowed in Branched, but not in rawhide? -- Kalev -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
