On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 11:08 AM Carl George <carl at redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 9:51 AM Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 9:03 PM Carl George <carl at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 7:01 AM Josh Boyer <jwboyer at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I see it here > > > > > > > > > > https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=408 > > > > > > > > > > but not on the mirrors ... > > > > > > > > > > A retired package? > > > > > > > > Not retired, just a build that will never be shipped at this point. > > > > > > > > josh > > > > Since it was published at one time, and has now been deleted from the > > public repos with extreme prejudice, in what way is this not > > "retired"? > > > > I admit this is a first. I've never seen Red Hat or CentOS pull this > > stunt. Has this *ever* been done before? > > _______________________________________________ > > CentOS-devel mailing list > > CentOS-devel at centos.org > > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel > > > > Retired would be if the package was removed entirely. `dnf install > freetype` still works, therefore the package is not retired. "dnf install freetype-2.9.1-5" does not. Neither does "dnf reinstall freetype" for this previously deployed host. He'd have to do "dnf downgrade freetype" or "rpm -U --oldpackage" for freetype, freetype-devel, and any other RPM's built from the same SRPM. > The 2.9.1-5 build is identical to the 2.9.1-4.el8_3.1 build. We > removed the duplicate (which follows what happened in the RHEL nightly > compose). Why is this so upsetting to you? Because this kind of unwelcome stunt is brand new as best I can tell, never pulled in 25 years as far as I can find. And whether this particular dropped package is identical to an inconsistently numbered release is no guarantee that next week, it won't be a testing gcc or glibc version, tested in what is now RHEL 8 beta and discarded for no predictable or published reason. It's also unlikely in the extreme that they're identical. Even if the checksums of compiled software match, datestamps on the compiled libraries would not. That's not likely to make a big deal, but it's not "identical".