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

Re: Upgrade path question



On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 07:19:39PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 23:18 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 01:51:23PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > 
> > > Historically, we've supported upgrades from N-2 on the premise that that's
> > > what's reasonable to test and make sure works; moreover, with the slightly
> > > extended lifecycle, someone can be on a maintained FC5 installation when
> > > F7 is released. Anything other than that is gravy. There hasn't been specific
> > > policy about garbage collecting obsoletes, to the the best of my knowledge.
> > > 
> > > Strawman would be if we're supporting N-2, to garbage collect after N-4?
> > 
> > I think we should not say anything about garbage collecting obsoletes,
> > and let the maintainer do whatever they prefer.
> 
> That's effectively equivalent to saying "garbage collect at N-2", since
> _some_ maintainer will do so, which then means the rest of the system
> might as well too since any update over a stride larger than that will
> have to be manual anyway.

I think you misinterpreted what I said, what I want is to avoid having 
garbage collecting been seen as mandatory, such that those who want to
maintain old cruft still can. It may be for some packages only, but
still be interesting for the maintainer, a obvious reason being, for
example, to avoid diverging with an EPEL version.

--
Pat


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