[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: rawhide report: 20060121 changes



On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 08:44 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> This is all well and dandy for traditional base + updates systems, it's
> an assumption that's dead wrong for rolling releases like rawhide.
> 
> This thread as shown nothing @rh checks rawhide iterations are
> self-consistent before pushing them. So there are no "good" distro
> states, only a string of "gray" system states, and it's totally wrong of
> yum to expect a "good" system state will appear some time in the future.
> 
> Hell, in theory it would be possible for rawhide to never be in a state
> yum likes from FCx to FCx+1T1
> 

Well we code yum to work properly in releases, not rawhide.  As I said
before, there is nothing stopping somebody from coding up a yum plugin
that does what you want and tossing it at extras.  Just don't look for
this feature in yum itself.

-- 
Jesse Keating RHCE      (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]