Package EVR problems in Fedora 2007-10-31

Michael Schwendt mschwendt.tmp0701.nospam at
Fri Nov 2 12:20:50 UTC 2007

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.

When rawhide becomes F8 (i.e. F8 is released officially), we exclude it
from the upgrade path check for some time again, because it is normal
that may get behind in pkg EVRs (due to expected breakage of build
deps etc.) But while preparing the next gold release, it is important
to learn about broken upgrade paths.
> > Why do you want to limit the testing to one dist?
> I want to have testing simultaneously for two dists, with a package in F-7 
> updates-testing and F-8 updates-testing. But then there will be no upgrade 
> path from F-7 updates-testing to F-8. There will be one to F-8 
> updatest-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.

> > > Afaik targets updates-testing at experienced users
> >
> > And rawhide also targets experienced users, doesn't it?
> Yes and not every rpm/update in Rawhide makes it into the next stable release 
> and there are also rpms that are removed from rawhide without adding a newer 
> version afaik.

Removed packages are ignored. Even a check for proper "Obsoletes"
would be insufficient.

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list