FC3rc5

[Matias Féliciano]

Le vendredi 29 octobre 2004 à 15:19 -0600, Kim Lux a écrit :
> I'm a bit choked about something: I posted issues to the list for a day
> and repeatedly was told that the problem was because I UPGRADED from a
> stable FC2 to FC3T3.  I was assured that if I did a fresh install all my
> problems would disappear.  In fact, none of them did.  Now today I've
> heard from several people that they want to hear responses from people
> who are specifically UPGRADING.  I'll bet that 50% of the FC3 installs
> are going to be UPGRADES, probably half of them from FC2.  I do not
> think it was smart for the board to write off my issues as being
> "upgrade related" and "solved".  They should have been given attention
> when they existed as a upgraded installation. 

My "opinion".
Today, Fedora does not support :
- FC(x) => FC(x+1)T(y) and FC(x)T(y) => FC(x) .

I think Fedora should support (this mean fedora should no reply with "do
a fresh install please" for a bug) if 'y' (test) is equal to 3.

Or more realistically :
- FCx => FC(x+1)RC(y) and FC(x)RC(y) => FC(x)
should be supported.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20041030/769c060f/attachment.sig>