On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 12:17:48PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Axel Thimm (Axel Thimm physik fu-berlin de) said: > > I'll also go with your suggestion, Rex. I'd call it the "it's written > > rh10, but it is pronounced Fedora Core 1" idiom ... > > Now that's just patently misleading. It's *not* Red Hat Linux 10, > it's Fedora Core 1. It's a shift in the development model, shifts > in the goals of the release, and more. Hence, the new name, and > new version. > > > By bumping all epochs of "Fedora Core" to ensure > > upgradability, and maintaining unnecessary multiple specfiles? > > Huh? We aren't bumping all epochs of Fedora Core packages, and > we don't have to to maintain upgradeability. > > > The alternative is to drop support for upgrading from RH <= 9 to FC, > > which is even uglier. > > Uprgrades work... there were a couple hiccups in the test release, > but by the time of the final release, I do believe there will only > be epochs added to indexhtml and comps. I think you lost the context, maybe I should have but Fedora Legacy in the subject. It is not about Fedora Core, where the affected packages are only a few, but for Fedora Lagacy projects, which will host the same package in different Legacy repos and will have to ensure upgradability. -- Axel Thimm physik fu-berlin de
Attachment:
pgp00032.pgp
Description: PGP signature