fedora-legacy agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? (was: Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 1)

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le ven 07/11/2003 à 17:59, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> On Friday 07 November 2003 08:47, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > While I personally support this scheme, I was under the impression
> > that there were more people against enforcing rpm upgrades for
> > minimally changes (e.g. fedora-legacy should only provide security
> > related errata). Especially because RH itself did not issue errata
> > for rpm despite the known problems.
> >
> > In fact, Warren, I believe we were the only two supporting rpm
> > upgrades, so unless we are the only left subscribers of
> > fedora-legacy, it is not yet an agreement of the whole list. ;)
> 
> I personally agreed to it, until somebody showed me clear evidence that 
> it could/would break something.

I supported it too I wasn't the only one.
Is this "me too thread" really useful ? Did anyone propose an
alternative scheme that had any chance to work ?

Cheers,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e=2E?=
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20031107/86fde345/attachment-0002.bin