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

[Jesse Keating]

On Jun 22, 2009, at 18:32, Dave Jones <davej at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 09:31:32AM +0200, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
>> On Jun 22, 2009, at 9:26, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/22/2009 12:54 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not possible while we allow people to keep making updates to the
>>>> older
>>>> releases.  Those updates quickly become version ( not just release
>>>> even
>>>> ) higher than the static copies on the release medium and repos.
>>>
>>> Is there any proposed solution to this problem? We can't just  
>>> continue
>>> to break upgrade paths and call it the way things are done.
>>>
>>> Rahul
>>>
>>
>> If you have any ideas I'd like to hear them. A super epoch has  
>> already
>> been suggested but that just masks the problem and may cause unwanted
>> downgrades. Any solution either involves severly limiting what kind  
>> of
>> updates can be done or requiring network access during upgrades.
>
> How about something in bodhi that checks you aren't introducing this
> problem, forcing you to push a higher NVR package to $nextrelease  
> first
> before you can push it to updates?
>
> Considering these updates are supposed to be for our 'stable' release,
> having them be in $nextrelease first seems like a good idea anyway.

Doesn't actually help when upgrading from the static DVD or release  
repo. Updates to the new release have to be enabled at upgrade time  
for this to help.

--
Jes