On 2 June 2016 at 21:39, Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:21 PM, James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Right now the retirement guidelines state that you should only retire in > > branched (prior to freeze) and up to master... > > > > But I just had a user bitten by a change in behaviour between dnf and yum > > that was discovered here: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096506 > > > > This is the bug raised with my package: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342249 > > > > It seems very unintuitive to the user, and wasn't initially apparent to > me > > until I look at all open dnf bugs and did a "find on page" for "obsolete" > > > > For now I've opened a rel-eng ticket to get the letsencrypt packages > > properly removed from the F23 repos so that a dnf install letsencrypt, > like > > F24 behaviour, will install certbot. > > > > I guess the real question is - is the dnf behaviour correct, and if the > dnf > > behaviour isn't going to change should we allow packagers to retire from > a > > released branch? > > The DNF behavior is not correct, as something that has a Provides line > should be considered equivalent, even if it also has an Obsoletes > line. Since this is *not* how DNF behaves currently, it should be > corrected ASAP. > > > > It was pointed out to me on #fedora-admin that I was incorrect in thinking my package could be pulled from the F23 repos - they remain stable and untouched.
At least now I'm aware of the issue and can direct anyone who does a dnf install letsencrypt that they need to do dnf install certbot on F23 ... but it will remain broken behaviour on F23 until F23 retires or dnf gets an update for sane behaviour. So there's no need to review retirement process of guidelines - but that dnf bug is a pretty irritating and unintuitive one.
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
