setup, fedora-release updates needed

[Callum Lerwick]

On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 17:53 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jon Masters (jcm at redhat.com) said: 
> > My point (as others made) is that making these files is completely
> > useless. I'm not saying "overwrite the user's files" I'm saying ideally
> > don't make the useless additional files on upgrade.
> 
> rpm already has code to avoid making them when they're useless. It's
> just being defeated by the sha256 code for the first upgrade to
> rawhide/F11.

So why aren't we putting both old and new hashes in the .rpm, for at
least the duration of F11, so that we don't have this problem? RPM could
then fall back on the old hashes for the purpose of detecting file
modification if that's all that's in the existing RPM db.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090312/c8c8a445/attachment.sig>