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

[Tom Lane]

Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta at gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Dave Jones<davej at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Considering these updates are supposed to be for our 'stable' release,
>> having them be in $nextrelease first seems like a good idea anyway.

> including rawhide?

> Do you want security fix updates to block on rawhide not composing in
> order to prevent an upgrade path breakage.

You could work around that by using a suitable definition of "pushed".
(You'd need a careful definition anyway, to not fail on an update
request that's trying to push to all the back branches at once.)

However, there's still an issue if rawhide is so badly broken that a
package won't even *build* there, as we know happens occasionally.

Maybe it would be sufficient just to have a nag reminder to the
maintainer.  "Pushing this would create an upgrade path breakage,
are you *sure* you don't want to update $nextversion first?"

I think it would be reasonable to have a hard requirement for update
consistency among already-released branches, though.  I find it hard
to envision a situation where it'd be reasonable to push something to
F9 before F10 today, say.

			regards, tom lane