Package EVR problems in Fedora 2007-10-31

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at
Fri Nov 2 14:48:36 UTC 2007

On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 10:39 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:33:34 +0100
> Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at> wrote:
> > It renders the primary purpose of "testing" absurd: "testing" packages
> > for "updates" (testing == volatile, scratch, ... irrelevant)
> > 
> > What matters, is packages which are being pushed from "testing" to
> > "updates" containing appropriate EVRS at the very moment they are
> > being pushed.
> Do you often build a package for testing, find out it works, and then
> go and rebuild it /again/ with a proper nvr?
I did so, once or twice, but in general, I rarely do so.

> A good nevra strategy across your branches should give you the freedom
> to use always good nevras for testing, so on the chance that one of
> your builds is good it can just be moved and you don't have to rebuild
> just to use a good nevra.
No disagreement on this. But I really don't see what you gain by forcing
EVRs to "updates < testing < rawhide" for "packages in testing".


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list