beta/rawhide upgrade paths (was: New Kernel - athlon - Mozilla)
Mike A. Harris
mharris at redhat.com
Tue Sep 9 09:56:17 UTC 2003
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Jeremy Katz wrote:
>On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 10:47, Axel Thimm wrote:
>> Seriously though I strongly second Alexandre's objection. If you want
>> people to track betas or rawhide at least they should be assured that
>> upgrade paths work. Leave the 20 in there until 2.4.23 or strip the
>> "1." from the revision number.
>>
>> Yes, rawhide is for breaking things, but please not the versioning :(
>
>This happens regularly during the development cycle. Always has and
>until people are perfect, there's not much that can be done about it.
>Just have to strive to have it happen as rarely as possible.
>
>The exact same caveats apply for the RHN channel that have always
>existed for rawhide -- the main difference is that the barrier to entry
>is lower.
I second this motion. A few weeks back, the xterm package had a
slightly different problem which caused upgrades from the
previous rawhide xterm to fail.
While I received numerous bug reports (and still a few are coming
in), the broken package which caused the problem was indeed a
rawhide highly-experimental-do-not-test-this-if-you-can-not
handle-breakage package, and as such a bit of breakage did occur.
The very few number of people likely to have hit that problem
seems to have stopped now that the fix has been available for a
while, and so no further action is needed. A small handful of
people might be left who have the broken xterm package, and will
hit the problem still. In a month or two, it wont matter anymore
at all.
I suspect the kernel problem above will result in the same more
or less.
Rawhide is raw, expect it to break is the motto. Don't use/test
it if you can't handle some amount of breakage like this is my
advice.
--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
More information about the fedora-test-list
mailing list