This issue would have been caught if the Sequoia backend were tested in CI.
As per
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2065#issuecomment-1237733334:
> what I'm currently thinking is that once the dust settles a bit, we'll just
> switch the Sequoia to be the default on CI
Has the dust settled? As the sequoia backend will be the default in Fedora 38,
is it time to use it in CI?
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2272#issuecomment-1308912150
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/2272/1308912...@github.com>
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
