Bug 585324

Summary: Please upgrade to bzr-2.1
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Reporter: Toshio Ernie Kuratomi <a.badger>
Component: bzrAssignee: Jan Zeleny <jzeleny>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact: Martin Cermak <mcermak>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 6.0CC: azelinka, joshkayse, mcermak, notting, ovasik, tmz
Target Milestone: rcKeywords: Rebase
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: bzr-2.1.1-1.el6 Doc Type: Rebase: Bug Fixes and Enhancements
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-07-02 14:54:23 EDT Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 592242    

Description Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2010-04-23 13:38:17 EDT
Description of problem:

bzr in the RHEL6 beta is bzr-2.0.x.  There's a few reasons to update that to bzr-2.1.x before RHEL6 final comes out:

* Ubuntu Lucid (the Canonical long term release) is going to ship with bzr-2.1.x.  This is not a guarantee that the 2.1.x line will be supported for the life of that Ubuntu LTS release but it does increase the value of upstream maintaining 2.1.x as a supported platform.
* Important bzr plugins and tools using the bzr API have been ported to bzr-2.1.x now, not all have an active bzr-2.0.x branch.
* Fedora EPEL-5 has bzr-2.1.x (for the above reasons).  So customers migrating from RHEL-5 with EPEL to RHEL-6 will need to manually uninstall the bzr from EPEL-5 and then reinstall the bzr from RHEL-6 if they upgrade an existing host.

Thank you,
The EPEL-5 bzr maintainer
Comment 1 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2010-04-23 13:42:16 EDT
I was corrected on my assumption that RHEL supports upgrades between major versions rather than having to do a reinstall.  So the note about EPEL-5 vs RHEL-6 isn't so important.  IMHO, it still looks bad that a customer will have bzr-2.1.x when using RHEL-5 and have to downgrade to bzr-2.0 when switching to RHEL-6 but they won't have the manual update step to worry about.

The first two points still stand.
Comment 3 RHEL Product and Program Management 2010-04-23 14:58:47 EDT
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red
Hat Enterprise Linux major release.  Product Management has requested further
review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red
Hat Enterprise Linux Major release.  This request is not yet committed for
inclusion.
Comment 4 Jan Zeleny 2010-04-26 08:26:15 EDT
I'm setting Rebase keyword for this bugzilla. Since this is a rebase request, it has to be approved first. If you have a RHEL subscription, please file a support ticket for this issue, so it can be prioritized.
Comment 5 Josh 2010-04-26 10:55:29 EDT
I would like to see this deployed as bzr-2.1 in RHEL6 since bzr is not part of RHEL5.
Comment 6 Josh 2010-04-26 11:03:32 EDT
(In reply to comment #4)
> I'm setting Rebase keyword for this bugzilla. Since this is a rebase request,
> it has to be approved first. If you have a RHEL subscription, please file a
> support ticket for this issue, so it can be prioritized.    

What version of RHEL should the support ticket be filed against?  bzr is not a part of RHEL5 and RHEL6 is not a version option.

Thanks in advance,
-josh
Comment 7 Jan Zeleny 2010-04-27 04:27:00 EDT
I'm very sorry, I can't help you here - I don't have access to our support portal.
Comment 11 Jan Zeleny 2010-05-04 08:31:10 EDT
New package is prepared, switching status to modified.
Comment 16 Martin Cermak 2010-06-17 06:59:55 EDT
=> VERIFIED
Comment 17 releng-rhel@redhat.com 2010-07-02 14:54:23 EDT
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Beta 2 is now available and should resolve
the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed
with a resolution of CURRENTRELEASE. You may reopen this bug report if the
solution does not work for you.