On 15/11/16 15:35, aleksander.baranowski wrote:
Hi guys,
There was part of conversation "I can confirm this behavior here. In fact, it looks like we've missed two updates; el7_2.16.1 was released the day after el7.16.1 was, and that one didn't update my install, either." You can imagine that next time same situation will occur, but with incremented epoch it will be even more broken.
Sincerely Alex
On 11/15/2016 04:28 PM, Sandro Bonazzola wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu mailto:lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote: >if we were to try and resolve this without >removing rpms, what would >that solution look like ? Increment epoch. Almost as tasty as removing rpms.incrementing epoch will cause a chain of other issues so I don't think it's the good way to go here.
_______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org <mailto:CentOS-devel@centos.org> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel <https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel>
removing the rpm wont fix the problem for people with the installed current. we'd still need to workout someway to make the default upgrade action do the right thing.
can we use obsoletes here ?