RPM version goes backward in Rawhide

[Tomas Mraz]

On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 11:03 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: 
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:42:09 -0700, TK (Toshio) wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 01:24:58PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > On 7/26/11 1:14 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > > Yes, It got untagged. See last week's thread on this list:
> > > > Subject: rpm builds failing with "Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found"
> > > 
> > > I thought there was a hard rule about not having nvrs go backwards, and 
> > > if a bad build was put out, it should be fixed with epoch or other such 
> > > NVR things to make sure the upgrade path continues.  (that is once a 
> > > build makes it out in the nightly repos)
> > > 
> > Yep.  You are correct.  If I'm doing proper forensics of fesco meeting notes
> > and tickets and google searches of the wiki, this policy was approved twice
> > by fesco but didn't get documented either time:
> > 
> > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/96
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20090313
> > 
> > The original proposal fell out of the no frozen rawhide FAD if I remember
> > correctly.
> 
> Ticket 96 is very imprecise, unfortunately.
> 
> There is a big difference between "a package going backwards in its EVR
> and staying there" and "a package getting untagged because it breaks koji
> buildroot and with the plan to go forward in EVR as soon as the bug is
> found and fixed".
> 
> In this case, the bad rpm-build broke koji builds, and since Rawhide
> may eat babies, it can happen that Rawhide users need downgrade manually
> while they have to wait for the fixed rpm-build.

+1, this should be only temporary breakage, although the fix is
unfortunately not there yet.

-- 
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
                                              Turkish proverb