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

Re: Retain upgrade paths (was: /etc/redhat-release?)

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 04:34:50PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Axel Thimm (Axel Thimm physik fu-berlin de) said: 
> > > It's a new release model, hence a new release number. Fedora Core 10
> > > doesn't make sense.
> > 
> > It does, if you want to retain upgrade paths ...
> What do you mean by 'upgrade paths'? All packages provided in the
> release, sort newer-or-equal, in the method used by all sane upgrade
> tools (E:V-R).  So, I don't see how we're not retaining an upgrade
> path.

This has not to do with fc isolated, but with the supporting 3rd party
repos. It was discussed further up this thread, but I will rephrase
with an example. There exist more than one repository building rpms
for several RH releases (say RH7.3, 8.0 and 9). In order to ensure
upgrade paths for the users of this repository the packages are being


or similar variations like omitting the "rh" etc. Upgrades from one RH
release with enabled repo to another were thus safe.

Just to give more food for thought: How would you version a kernel
based on the same sources released for RH 7.x,8.0,9 and now
additionally fc?


The latter looses. You either have to rethink the first three or
version the last with something rpm-higher than "9". Or start epochin
all such packages occuring on multiple releases, which for somerpeos
means all of the carried packages.

You cannot save the above scheme with epochs. See the previous
messages in the thread with the "Background" information to see why
this didn't hit RH so often in the past, but possibly will do yo
rather often with shorter release cycles.

Or one decides to not support upgrade from older RH releases
concerning non-RH repos, which would be unfortunate.
Axel Thimm physik fu-berlin de

Attachment: pgp00027.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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