Am 29.06.20 um 21:41 schrieb Tuomo Soini:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 17:32:58 +0200
Leon Fauster wrote:
For those that have an automated update process in place.
What steps are needed to revert this mistake?
"dnf distro-sync" after issue has been corrected. Issue has been fixed
but not applied
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 17:32:58 +0200
Leon Fauster wrote:
>
> For those that have an automated update process in place.
> What steps are needed to revert this mistake?
"dnf distro-sync" after issue has been corrected. Issue has been fixed
but not applied yet. It only gets fixed after next module
Am 29.06.20 um 17:16 schrieb Troy Dawson:
Hi Felix,
I wasn't offended by your tone. I felt the same way when I saw this on Friday.
Although dnf sees these as two different modules, since they have same
name and stream, dnf lumps them together. When that happens, dnf uses
the packages with the
Hi Felix,
I wasn't offended by your tone. I felt the same way when I saw this on Friday.
Although dnf sees these as two different modules, since they have same
name and stream, dnf lumps them together. When that happens, dnf uses
the packages with the highest Name-Version-Release (NVR). In
Hi Troy,
thank you for the pointer and sorry if my tone was a bit harsh.
I filed also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851642 - is that
the right place?
Felix
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
Policies don't mean mistakes won't happen.
A mistake happened and
A) We are trying to clean it up as soon as possible [1]
B) We are trying to work with mbs and infrastructure to make sure this
can't happen in the future.
I'm sorry this is so short on details, but I need to either write a
short
