short window between fedora-release update and resuming of updates-testing

[James Antill]

On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 23:50 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 00:24 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > The window doesn't matter that much anyway, as by no means all packages
> > > pushed to updates-testing during the pre-final cycle have been (or will
> > > be) approved as updates. So it's perfectly possible people who installed
> > > pre-releases will have what you term 'unwanted' packages anyway. This
> > > seems to be to be reasonable for those who run pre-releases, but I
> > > suppose we could write it up somewhere for clarity...
> > 
> > Yes, the broken decision was to enable updates-testing by default for 
> > prereleases and we should never do this again. It just can't work, because 
> > updates-testing is like the Red Pill: once you're on it, you can't get off 
> > anymore. The fedora-release update which disabled updates-testing broke many 
> > user setups, suddenly unable to install packages due to dependencies.
[...]
> (and you can get off it, you can just search for packages from
> updates-testing and yum downgrade 'em. Wouldn't be too hard for someone
> to hack up a little script to do this and publish it somewhere, if they
> were terribly worried about this issue).

 For the rawhide yum (pre 3.2.28) you can just do:

yum distro-sync

...this will downgrade everything to the latest available version (or
try). This doesn't work over obsoletes, due to their one way nature, but
should be good enough for most "updates-testing downgrades".

> In practice it shouldn't be a hugely horrible problem after a few
> days/weeks, as most of the updates will get pushed or superseded.

 That too, one advantage of the firehose is it will make you clean
pretty quickly ;)

-- 
James Antill - james at fedoraproject.org
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/releases
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/whatsnew/3.2.28
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumMultipleMachineCaching