Why do we need FC version attached to the package name?

[Ben Boeckel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:

> On 06/21/2009 09:14 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 
>> Yes, and let me add that the ".fc10" and ".fc11" (the dist-
tag) is part
>> of the package "Release" value not just the package file 
name.
>> That makes the .fc11 package "newer than" the .fc10 package
>> in RPM's view, which is particularly important if internally
> 
> 
> I *wish* it made a difference. I did an upgrade am an left 
with a host
> of fc10 packages because the fc11 ones weren't considered 
newer.
> 
> 
> For example people with updates-testing enabled on fc10 got a
> non-upgraded yum because the versions were the same (except 
for
> fc10/fc11) and it stopped working because python went from 
2.5 to
> 2.6.... So to RPM the fc10/fc11 isn't being compared, at 
least not that
> I can see...
> 
>> it really differs from the .fc10 build (e.g. in terms of 
compiler
>> generated code, library versions, dependencies).
> 
> It would definitely help if it did though...
> 

This is a broken upgrade path. It's a bug with the package.

However, if you're upgrading to the DVD, yes, there will be 
broken deps from updates-testing. Since updates-testing of 
F(n-1) is a moving target that can pass GA of Fn's NVR set very 
quickly, forcing F11 > F10 in all cases is unacceptable and 
would stunt releases that aren't (Rawhide - 1).

- --Ben
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAko+wLsACgkQiPi+MRHG3qQp0wCfSRH0iwR13qyiV7M0m2D1mQ4g
cygAnRFzK2EbUzHIGAMO+aSRNVoVDmoY
=c0Ff
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----