RPM version goes backward in Rawhide

[Kevin Kofler]

Kalev Lember wrote:
> Bumping epoch in rpm would have made it harder for all other packages to
> depend on a particular rpm version. Instead of having e.g.
> Requires: rpm >= 4.9.1, they would now also have to remember the put the
> correct epoch in there.

Indeed, Epoch should be used only as a last resort, it's silly to force its 
usage this way!

I think we should go back to requiring monotonically increasing EVRs only 
for released versions, not Rawhide.

> I think it's reasonable to have a broken package pulled from rawhide for
> a little while, if it's going to be properly fixed up in a few days.
> Yes, we should try to avoid such things, but having a hard rule here
> would be counter-productive.

+1

At the very least, let's not be anal about enforcing that rule, if we want 
it at all!

> Also, we have a much worse case of versions going backwards. After each
> Alpha release, lots of people are going to install Branched pre-releases
> and they automatically get enabled updates-testing repos. And in that
> updates-testing repo, packages are often pulled out and versions go
> backwards. Why is such practice allowed in Branched, but not in rawhide?

Enabling updates-testing by default for Branched was a very stupid decision. 
This should be reverted. updates-testing should NEVER be enabled by default.

We should instead focus on getting stuff out to stable faster. In 
particular, why not allow direct stable pushes (without any karma) for 
branched-but-unreleased versions?

        Kevin Kofler