> Is the Server SIG interested in pursuing a package maintainer guideline > that requires Fedora N+X should _always_ have newer NEVRA then Fedora N? As a LiveUpgradeSIG member http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/LiveUpgrade and someone who also runs runs home servers on Fedora, I give this an extremely emphatic +500.

> Another topic I find interesting especially for servers is the yum > upgrade path; > > If you download the fedora-release package for Fedora N+1, along with > it's dependency fedora-release-notes of course, and install it, you > should find a large number of updates available to the system. > > Needless to say, either a "yum update" or a "yum upgrade", even when > just applied to specific packages only, should update the system to > whatever packages Fedora N+1 has to offer. Long story short, you should > end up with a Fedora N+1 system. The key word being "should". > > Although this is not a very feasible way to upgrade servers (as it may > interrupt services running on the system because of the replacement of > binaries and libraries), I'm not stabbing at this for the concern of > stability -as obviously when from your point of view you need stability > what the he^H^H are you doing installing Fedora on the server. > > Sometimes, like with Fedora Core 1 to Fedora Core 2 upgrades, you will > find yourself behind to console to accompany the change to using udev; > there's not much we can do about that. > > Sometimes though, and this is where I get back to the actual point of > this message, like with the upgrade from Fedora 8 to Fedora 9, as it > turns out there's no upgrade path for essential packages like openssl; > Here's why: > > openssl on a Fedora 8 system has a newer NEVRA then the available > package in Fedora 9+Updates. This causes yum and rpm to disregard the > Fedora 9 openssl package as an update although in Fedora 8, openssl is > the package that offers the libssl.so.6 library a lot of other packages > depend upon. In Fedora 9, this library is called libssl.so.7. Needless > to say, if the Fedora 9 version of the openssl packages does not end up > on the to-be-upgraded system as an update or upgrade, a lot of packages > depending on libssl.so.6 won't be upgraded, and the packages depending > on libssl.so.7 won't be upgraded either. > > Now, to put this into perspective, my servers at home run Fedora, both > as a testing ground, because I need recent stuff to do stuff with and > because I find the well-known derivatives a little boring. > > Is the Server SIG interested in pursuing a package maintainer guideline > that requires Fedora N+X should _always_ have newer NEVRA then Fedora N? As a LiveUpgradeSIG member http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/LiveUpgrade and someone who also runs runs home servers on Fedora, I give this an extremely emphatic +500.

Dan Horák wrote: > This is a general Fedora issue affecting all groups. There used to be > some "Broken upgrade paths" reports, IIRC, but can't recall when I had > last seen them. > My gut feeling says they were lost during the core/extras merge...