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

Re: Updates



2009/6/14 Rahul Sundaram <sundaram fedoraproject org>:
> On 06/15/2009 12:09 AM, Sharpe, Sam J wrote:
>> 2009/6/14 Rahul Sundaram <sundaram fedoraproject org>:
>>> On 06/15/2009 12:06 AM, Sharpe, Sam J wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, the outcome is that there are genuine packages in F11 that are
>>>> tagged as fc10 - I can check more cases if you are still not sure.
>>>
>>> I am sure there are but the examples you gave out earlier weren't valid.
>>> That's all.
>>
>> You're confused - I came into the conversation late and didn't give
>> any examples - must have been the OP ;o)
>
> Sorry. Misspoke. The examples given out by Martin wasn't and you
> questioned whether a Fedora 11 version of unique existed. It does.

I think the real learning point here is that people who try removing
all fc10 packages are going to be in trouble...

An F10-F11 preupgrade will leave some (unique, ntp, ntp-perl etc.)
where the updated F10 version is higher than F11 and there are some
that should genuinely be in F11 because they don't have an equivalent
F11 build yet.

I just did an automatic --nodeps removal of all my .fc10 packages
followed by a yum install of the same packages and I certainly have
some still tagged as fc10, but I guess all this will change when Mr
Keating fixes all those failed F11 builds in koji against his name ;o)

-- 
Sam


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