fedora-legacy agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? (was: Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 1)

[Johannes Erdfelt]

On Fri, Nov 07, 2003, Jesse Keating <jkeating at j2solutions.net> wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> On Friday 07 November 2003 08:47, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > While I personally support this scheme, I was under the impression
> > that there were more people against enforcing rpm upgrades for
> > minimally changes (e.g. fedora-legacy should only provide security
> > related errata). Especially because RH itself did not issue errata
> > for rpm despite the known problems.
> >
> > In fact, Warren, I believe we were the only two supporting rpm
> > upgrades, so unless we are the only left subscribers of
> > fedora-legacy, it is not yet an agreement of the whole list. ;)
> 
> I personally agreed to it, until somebody showed me clear evidence that 
> it could/would break something.

Is there clear evidence that it would fix something?

It seems to me that the question shouldn't be "what does it break?",
it should be "what does it fix?".

I haven't followed the discussion closely and I think I joined the list
in the middle of the discussion, but I imagine that those in favor of
an RPM upgrade have a specific set of bugs in mind. Perhaps for a
specific version of Red Hat. Were those listed previously on the list?

JE