fedora-legacy agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? (was: Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 1)

[Jesse Keating]

On Friday 07 November 2003 12:06, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> Make it 3 then...  I support Warren's suggestion.  Perhaps others
> will speak up too if it is something up for democratic vote.  If
> it's not up for democratic vote, hail Warren!

Well, I think right now I'd have the final say, but I do differ to 
warren on a lot of issues.  I'd have to dig up some old email, but 
there were some locking bugs and upgrade version issues that we wanted 
to solve with a single rpm version set across all the supported Legacy 
distros.  Fedora.us has done a lot of research on it so I've been told, 
and they haven't found any reason to not fix these nasty bugs.

So I'm going to be a bit totalitarian for a moment, and unless somebody 
can show me a really good reason to _not_ fix RPM across these release, 
then rpm will be upgraded.

Note, this is not an upgrade just to upgrade, we're fixing bugs here.

-- 
Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy)
Mondo DevTeam           (www.mondorescue.org)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
 
Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20031107/e64a27d5/attachment.sig>