xfce-4.2.0 i386 rpms for devel/rawhide

Warren Togami wtogami at redhat.com
Mon Mar 14 05:46:49 UTC 2005

Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
>>Speaking of versions, should I have 4.2.0 (or 4.2.1) tagged for both
>>the fc3 and devel trees? Is there any problem with fedora extras
>>releasing a newer version of a package than was in core?
>>(Or should we have 4.0.6 or nothing in the fc3 tree, and only do the
>>newer versions for devel/fc4?)
> Its your call. Normally, we don't let Fedora Extras packages conflict
> with Core, but since xfce moved from Core to Extras, as long as your
> packages are a newer version, there shouldn't be any issue.
> You'd just need to upgrade everything that depends on any of the xfce
> bits (which you seem to be doing already), to avoid breaking FC3 xfce
> users who have Extras in their yum.conf.
> For other packages, this would be a logistical nightmare, but xfce is
> fairly well self-contained.
> (I need to word this in a more formal policy, but I think you get the
> idea)

Why don't we test it in FC4 Extras and the equivalent on the side.  Then 
once we're sure everything is fine we can push it as a FC3 Update.  The 
entire KDE was upgraded after the release of FC3, so why not XFCE? =)

Warren Togami
wtogami at rdhat.com

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list