On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 02:51:54AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> kevin wrote:
> > distro-sync is nice and all, but it's not a silver bullet.
> > In cases of simple packages a downgrade may not break anything, but in
> > cases where other things already built upon it, where the new one
> >
On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 3:11 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> If the distro-sync (which should be the default way to do updates
> at least on Rawhide, if not everywhere) mentions a package being downgraded,
> that is much more likely to be noticed.
>
I look forward to your formal change
Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> While I don't like epochs, there is nothing intrinsically
> wrong with an epoch bump when a packager
> determines that they need to downgrade because
> the testing for the upgrade was insufficient or
> inadequately performed and the packager found
> that there was no way
On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 1:53 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
> And the proposed "solution" of bumping Epoch fixes none of that. It just
> introduces an Epoch that we will be stuck with forever. It will not
> magically make the downgrade safe in any of the 3 situations you describe.
While I
kevin wrote:
> distro-sync is nice and all, but it's not a silver bullet.
> In cases of simple packages a downgrade may not break anything, but in
> cases where other things already built upon it, where the new one
> changed conguration or interface, or even where the upgrade changed
> data, it
On Mon, 2024-01-29 at 16:33 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On 2024-01-29 16:00, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_rawhide_is_allowed_to_lag_temporarily
> >
> > you may do a new build with lower EVR
>
> That is not what that
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 08:08:54AM +, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 03:43:39PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > nirik ran a script that checks for versioning issues in Rawhide today, and
> > it found several: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11922#comment-893797
> >
> >
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 01:19:18AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > yes rawhide user should use dnf distro-sync not dnf upgrade
>
> +1. Rawhide EVRs should be allowed to go backwards, that is an integral part
> of being a development branch.
distro-sync is nice and
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 03:43:39PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> nirik ran a script that checks for versioning issues in Rawhide today, and
> it found several: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11922#comment-893797
>
> Some of these followed a pattern, so I figured a reminder was in order. In
>
On 2024-01-29 16:00, Sérgio Basto wrote:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_rawhide_is_allowed_to_lag_temporarily
you may do a new build with lower EVR
That is not what that guideline says. It says the Rawhide build can be
lower-versioned than a current
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> yes rawhide user should use dnf distro-sync not dnf upgrade
+1. Rawhide EVRs should be allowed to go backwards, that is an integral part
of being a development branch.
Kevin Kofler
--
___
devel mailing list --
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 1:00 AM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
(snip)
> yes rawhide user should use dnf distro-sync not dnf upgrade
It is better, yes, but it is not *required*.
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_rawhide_is_allowed_to_lag_temporarily
This is a
On Mon, 2024-01-29 at 15:43 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> nirik ran a script that checks for versioning issues in Rawhide
> today,
> and it found several:
> https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11922#comment-893797
>
> Some of these followed a pattern, so I figured a reminder was in
> order.
> In
nirik ran a script that checks for versioning issues in Rawhide today,
and it found several: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11922#comment-893797
Some of these followed a pattern, so I figured a reminder was in order.
In all these cases, a new version was pushed to Rawhide, then "reverted"
14 matches
Mail list logo
