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

Re: fedora-devel not up-to-date with fedora-yarrow-updates? (please fix)

On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 12:07:44PM -0500, Mark Mielke wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 11:57:57AM -0500, Nalin Dahyabhai wrote:
> > Problems you find while testing an FC1 update on a development box are
> > either going to be bugs in the package, or incompatibilities with the
> > tree you have installed.  The results of your testing are only going to
> > be meaningful if you can distinguish between the two.  It may produce
> > valid results, but this is a caveat.
> Along similar lines to my other response, I see the point you are making,
> however, for the packages listed, do you see any reason why they will *not*
> eventually (whenever somebody finds time) be sent to fedora-devel?
> Specifically:
>    bash-2.05b-33                 bash-2.05b-34
>    binutils-        binutils-
>    bash-2.05b-33                 bash-2.05b-34
>    nss_ldap-207-3                nss_ldap-207-6
>    postfix-2.0.11-5              postfix-2.0.16-1
>    sed-4.0.8-1                   sed-4.0.8-2

These are in testing still.  Once they're out of testing, I don't see a
reason why they wouldn't end up in the development tree.

>    mktemp-1.5-6                  mktemp-1.5.1-1

Epoch change.

>    gnupg-1.2.3-1                 gnupg-1.2.3-2

Oops, forgot.  Should get rebuilt for devel in the next day or so.

> For bash, binutils, gnupg, nss_ldap, and sed, only the package number has
> changed. Are you suggesting that the newer package has any possibility of
> *not* making it into FC2?

If the nss_ldap update turns out to be totally broken (not that I think
it is), for sure it's not going into the FC2 tree in its current form.
It'll be revised for additional testing as many times as necessary to
correct the problem which the update is intended to fix.

> For mktemp, and postfix, the updates directory has *newer* versions of the
> software. Are you suggesting that the newer versions have any possibility
> of *not* making it into FC2?

If they're broken, or some other problem crops up with those versions,
absolutely, but in this instance, we're talking about testing updates
for the most part.  If it's not a testing update, it's a question of
when the package maintainer rebuilds it for the FC2 development tree
(which generally needs to be done for reasons outlined earlier in this
thread, but I think we both agree on that).



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