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

[Simon Andrews]

Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Simon Andrews wrote:
>> I don't see the problem with forcing the use of these packages during an
>> upgrade regardless of what versions were on the original system.  You'd
>> be left with a functional system
> 
> Not really. Things like KDE config files processed by kconf_update, Firefox
> profiles, Amarok databases etc. will have been converted to the format
> expected by the new version, downgrading is not supported by upstream and
> the old version may thus not work or lose some settings.

Surely these aren't the kind of updates which should be applied within a 
release cycle anyway?  A new release is the time you'd expect to get a 
major revision of this sort.


>> So, just to be clear here.  Anyone who either has no network connection
>> or whose network connection is too slow to support downloading
>> potentially hundreds of megs up updates isn't going to be able to
>> upgrade any more?
> 
> Fedora effectively requires a fast network connection for the regular
> updates anyway.

Really?  I've installed Fedora for several people who don't have a 
decent network connection and have taken updates on a USB stick at 
intervals.  I'm sure there's plenty of the world where install disks are 
passed round.

Even where you do have a fast network connection there can still be 
problems:

1) All of our servers have to access the internet via a proxy.  At least 
within the Anaconda UI there doesn't appear to be any support for 
configuring proxies so I'm forced into kickstart / shells / extra boot 
options to upgrade?

2) At home I have a cap on how much I can download except for an 
unlimited window overnight (midnight - 6am I think).  Do I now have to 
wait up to upgrade my machines rather than doing the initial upgrade 
from media and then picking up updates automatically the next night?

Making a media based upgrade unsupported is going to be a pain for an 
awful lot of people.

Simon.