On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:24:36 +0100
Tomáš Smetana <tsmet...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 14:38:08 +0100
> Florian Festi <ffe...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 01/13/2016 02:36 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Am 13.01.2016 um 14:30 schrieb Richard Hughes:
> > >> On 13 January 2016 at 13:13, Reindl Harald
> > >> <h.rei...@thelounge.net> wrote:
> > >>> so there is no justification to declare one need to install
> > >>> from scratch just because rpm which works for many years fine
> > >>> changes it's storage format
> > >>
> > >> I don't think anyone said there was a need to reinstall from
> > >> scratch
> > >
> > > so how do you translate "clearly not forward compatible"?
> >
> > "forward compatible" means the old version of a program being able
> > to read/process newer version data.
> >
> > The current rpm versions will not be able to read the new database
> > format.
>
> I tend to use systemd-nspawn containers for building rpms. So for
> example, I have a Fedora 24 system and use its dnf to create e.g.
> Centos 7 container root and then build Centos rpms from within that
> container. If I understand the change correctly, this is going to
> break since the Centos 7 rpm-build will not be able to read the
> database created by the Fedora 24 dnf.
>
> I know more people using dnf/rpm to "manage" the containers and this
> is somewhat a regression for us. I'm not sure there is a way to
> prevent this breakage... So just FYI. :)
won't regular mock chroot have the same problem?
Dan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
