Why do we need FC version attached to the package name?

[Simon Andrews]

Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The only solution to this particular problem is to stop claiming we support
> upgrade methods which don't include updates.

This can't be the only possible solution to this problem.  Anaconda can 
already ignore dependencies when installing packages which aren't part 
of the update set.  All that would be required would be allowing it to 
downgrade packages which are newer on the original system to those 
present on the install media.  The whole point of a release set of 
packages is that it is a well tested consistent set of pacakges.  I 
don't see the problem with forcing the use of these packages during an 
upgrade regardless of what versions were on the original system.  You'd 
be left with a functional system and the tools you need to update to the 
  latest versions of packages should be functional.

> The F11 DVD is no longer viable for upgrades as of the latest F10 yum 
> update. We CANNOT recommend it for upgrades anymore.

This is certainly true, but that doesn't mean that all future updates 
have to be broken.  I've got machines which have been stepwise upgraded 
from around FC3 and this is the first release where one of the core 
packages has been broken due to a dependency problem during the upgrade.

> For future Fedora releases, there are 2 solutions:
> either we fix the DVD to use the repositories enabled on the installed
> system (updates etc.) like preupgrade now does (which also implies that it
> will have to refuse doing the upgrade if it can't connect to the network)
> or we drop support for upgrading from the DVD entirely (we could hide it
> behind an "upgrade" boot option like RHEL does).

So, just to be clear here.  Anyone who either has no network connection 
or whose network connection is too slow to support downloading 
potentially hundreds of megs up updates isn't going to be able to 
upgrade any more?

Simon.