Dne 11. 03. 19 v 20:50 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a): >>>>>> "VO" == Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> writes: > VO> In this case, if DNF said something like "you have installed > VO> foo-1:1.0, but there is available foo-0:2.0" it would give me > VO> hint. From the start it would be annoying, but once we would reach > VO> the point 4, I would, at least, know that I should do distrosync or > VO> something. > > Under the proposal I put forward: > > 1. No releases except for rawhide would ever be affected by this, > assuming that users upgrade using supported methods. > > 2. Rawhide users would need to do this exactly once per cycle, on an > announced date.
So maintainers would not be allowed to remove epoch, but there would be some script/automation, which would remove epoch on demand, once per release, in all packages? Interesting idea. Anyway, I still believe DNF could report when there is package 0:2.0, while there is also 1:1.0, because this change, if accepted, is going to redefine the meaning of epoch anyway. Epoch would basically become some temporary override no matter what is the precise process. Vít > > So you would know that you should do distrosync because that would be > announced. > > - J< _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
