Experience and observations of F11a/rawhide so far

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 14:59 +0000, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Mike Chambers spake thusly:
> > On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 23:22 +0000, Keith G. Robertson-Turner wrote:
> >> Surprisingly stable, for the most part, but with a few nasties:
> >> 
> >> . RPM broke completely at one point (md5 mismatch errors),
> >>   necessitating manual extraction from an RPM of updated components.
> >>   Was there a more graceful way of handling the changeover?
> > 
> > update rpm first, then update the rest.
> 
> The above issue occurred as a result of simply running "yum update",
> since I had no advance knowledge of the md5/sha1 switchover, and
> therefore it didn't occur to me to update RPM separately. I suppose I
> should be tracking feature changes more closely, if I'm going to test an
> alpha release, but at the moment I am rather limited to how much time I
> can spend doing that.

This is, in fact, noted in the Alpha release notes. It's probably a good
idea to at least find time to read those before running the alpha :)

> However, this won't be an issue in the final release, since RPM will
> already be updated.

It also won't be an issue when updating from F10 to F11, as long as you
update F10 first (a compatible rpm was shipped as an F10 update). It'll
also be OK from Beta onwards, as you say. Only Alpha -> 11 or
non-updated 10 -> 11 via yum will be affected.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net