RPM version goes backward in Rawhide

[Toshio Kuratomi]

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.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110726/c78ced1c/attachment.bin