Ready for new RPM version?
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
dominik at greysector.net
Thu Feb 26 21:18:06 UTC 2009
On Thursday, 26 February 2009 at 20:38, seth vidal wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 14:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > seth vidal <skvidal at fedoraproject.org> writes:
> > > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 13:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Since F-9 is still supported, isn't it a management failing to have
> > >> allowed this to happen without a plan to make mock on F-9 work?
> > > Then you're wrong:
> > > yum update rpm\* yum\*
> > > that should be about it.
> > Oh?
> > [tgl at rh2 ~]$ sudo yum update rpm\* yum\*
> > ...
> > Setting up Update Process
> > No Packages marked for Update
> > [tgl at rh2 ~]$
> > What was stated a couple days ago was that back-porting the hash changes
> > into pre-F10 RPM versions was completely impractical. Has that been
> > rethought?
> I'm sorry, I thought you had said F10. Not F9.
> In F10 it's available.
> And no - I don't think it is unreasonable to ask our developers and
> maintainers to be on something vaguely recent.
I have F-10 on my netbook, but obviously it's too underpowered to build
packages on comfortably. My main desktop is F-9, because I don't have
time to upgrade it.
> And if they can't be for whatever reason it's not crazy for them
> to run it in a xen
There's no Xen dom0 for F-9.
> or kvm instance.
And KVM requires hardware support for virtualization. Any other suggestions?
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
More information about the devel