Guidance on hulahop epoch usage

Peter Hutterer peter.hutterer at
Fri Jun 3 02:52:43 UTC 2011

On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 03:12:39AM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 09:39:13 +1000
> Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 02:21:14AM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> > > However, given that the problematic package only appeared in Fedora
> > > 10 and upgrade paths are guaranteed by Fedora policy only from
> > > F(N-1) to F(N), I'd say that there's probably no need to fix this
> > > any more, since any remaining installations haven't had updates for
> > > ages and upgrading to a current release cleanly would require a
> > > clean reinstall anyway.
> > 
> > true, but anyone who would have had hulahop installed at F-10 time
> > and did the (guaranteed) update to F11, F12, ... F15 at the right
> > times would still have this issue now, right?
> > 
> > tbh, it seems to be corner case enough to just say "uninstall and
> > re-install" but nonetheless...
> Yes. It's just a bit hard to believe that there would be still a lot of 
> systems suffering from this, since yum would have complained about the
> problem on every update, and you haven't had a single bug report about
> the issue in a time period of more than two years..?

As stated in the first email, there is a bug:
People (well, at least one person) first complained about it Mach 2010 - no
one listened (or did anything about it).

Anyway, I'll tell Jeremy he'll need to manually remove/update.


More information about the devel mailing list