OK, well I'm actually not going to erase the rpms, but just make a local backup. but ok
which arches? just i586 & x86_64 for now? On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Denis Silakov <[email protected]>wrote: > Let's follow this way. There is a risk that some packages failed to > rebuild for omv2014, but all crucial packages should be in place. > > > On 04/14/2014 04:42 PM, Matthew Dawkins wrote: > > I think I might have access now. Last time I logged in I saw that I had > access to 2013.0, 2014.0 & cooker. > > So, just remove all *2013.0*.rpm from the 2014.0 repos? > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Tomasz Paweł Gajc <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Well only Bero Have such powerfull access >> Wysłano z BlackBerry® w Orange >> ------------------------------ >> *From: * Denis Silakov <[email protected]> >> *Date: *Mon, 14 Apr 2014 16:37:08 +0400 >> *To: *Tomasz Paweł Gajc<[email protected]> >> *Cc: *<[email protected]> >> *Subject: *Re: FBA >> >> Meanwhile, I can see a lot of old packages (with omv2013.0 distsuffix >> )in omv2014.0 repository (e.g., >> FaxMail-2.3-20-omv2013.0.x86_64.rpm<http://abf-downloads.rosalinux.ru/openmandriva2014.0/repository/x86_64/main/release/FaxMail-2.3-20-omv2013.0.x86_64.rpm>vs >> FaxMail-2.3-21-omv2014.0.x86_64.rpm). >> >> Do we really need these pacakges or maybe somebody with necessary >> permissions will just remove them (all omv2013.0 packages for which >> omv2014.0 analogues exists)? >> >> This would really speed up repository syncing, at least the initial one. >> >> On 04/13/2014 03:27 AM, Tomasz Paweł Gajc wrote: >> >> Helo Denis, >> >> is it possible you can swap 2013.0 for 2014.0 in Dependency tests: >> File conflicts >> Superseeded packages >> Obsoleted Packages >> Elf closure >> Alternatives >> >> What is most important are file conflicts and superseede/obsoleted to clean >> befora GA release. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Denis Silakov, ROSA Laboratory.www.rosalab.ru >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > -- > Denis Silakov, ROSA Laboratory.www.rosalab.ru > > > > >
