On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 07:37:18AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > . Upgrades are tough > > enough without bending the rules. > > if the users are expected to do this it should be documented. Even > when its documented it is still broken. Fedora core 3 should make NO > assumptions regarding the upgrade status of fedora versions before it There is a big difference between assumptions and tested. Perhaps the FC3 developers assumed the system was up to date but didn't test any other combination. Perhaps they didn't. You can bet your next cup of coffee, though, that the developers did not test upgrades on every possible combination of package updates. They've got better things to do with their time. You can complain that the upgrade process is broken if you've got an unexpected package combination that's never been tested before and the upgrade went astray. Bottom line, though, is that it's *your* system that's now broken, and not the developers. I'm merely stating what I think best practises should be. You're welcome to do whatever you want to stress-test anaconda and the rest of the upgrade process. It's your system... -- Ed Wilts, RHCE Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:ewilts@xxxxxxxxxx Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program
