Package EVR problems in Fedora 2007-10-31

Till Maas opensource at till.name
Fri Nov 2 13:07:12 UTC 2007


On Fr November 2 2007, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:40:53 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > > Why isn't the same update built also for F8?
> >
> > I did not say, that the update is not built for F8, but it will be in F8
> > updates-testing and not in F8.
>
> Where do you see a broken upgrade path then?
>
> The upgrade path ends with:
>
>   ... F8 + F8 updates + F8 updates-testing --> rawhide
>
> An EVR upgrade in F8 updates-testing can only break the path to
> rawhide, not the path to older dists.

Here is an example from the report:
    Zim
      F7-updates-testing > F8 (0:0.21-1.fc7 > 0:0.19-1.fc7)
Zim-0.21-1.fc7 is in F7 updates-testing but the version in F8 is older. Btw. 
there is already a request to add Zim-0.21-1.fc8 to F8 updates-testing.

> How do you know that the script will report a broken upgrade path in
> that case? We don't have a 2nd testing repo yet. Skimming over the
> part of the code, all that should matter is that the F8 test-update
> has a higher EVR than the F7 test-update.  In short: packages in the
> dist '8' repo family must have a pkg EVR that is '>=' than the EVR of
> pkgs in the dist '7' repo family.

It seemed to me, that we discuss here, how we would like the script to behave. 
Btw. imho there should be a warning when a stable package in F7 is evr-higher 
than a stable package in F8, even when there is a newer package in 
F8-updates-testing.

Regards,
Till
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20071102/d85ec0ee/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list