Why do we need FC version attached to the package name?

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 06/22/2009 01:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:

> 
> If you have any ideas I'd like to hear them. A super epoch has already
> been suggested but that just masks the problem and may cause unwanted
> downgrades. Any solution either involves severly limiting what kind of
> updates can be done or requiring network access during upgrades.

I can't think of any fool proof solutions but there are a couple of
things that might help:

* Run checks on upgrade paths and inform the maintainers when are about
to break an upgrade path (ie) before signing it. I noticed a few
maintainers I talked to just weren't aware they were doing so and
neither were they aware of the %dist.1 trick to workaround the problem
atleast in some cases. They might choose to delay an update where it is
feasible to do so. Not sure what we can do about security updates or
critical bug fixes breaking the upgrade path for the next release.
Ideally, the maintainer should have pushed it in sync for the two
releases.

* In preupgrade, if a user has updates-testing repo enabled, make sure
it is enabled for the release they are upgrading to. I think I have a
RFE filed on this. This is a bit of a corner case.

Rahul
Rahul