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

Re: Kind request: Set release version to "10"

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

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