We have +1 from QA, +1 from dnf-plugin-system-upgrade maintainer, and
+1 from
gnome-software maintainers (at least that's how I chose to interpret it).
There were not many responses from general audience (I hoped for some
package maintainers feedback). From my POV, we should just do it, or have it
blessed by FESCo if we want to be extra safe and correct. I would do the
former.
I forgot two things. There's this quote from Kalev that's worth mentioning:
With my packager hat on, it would be great if we could get this in
the
packaging guidelines as well, so that there's a canonical source that
says that obsoletes/conflicts etc must be preserved to support upgrades
across 2 releases. And also maybe make some noise in devel-announce and
in the fedora magazine so that packagers are aware that this is
something everybody needs to support.
What do you think about pushing this into packaging guidelines?
Second, I'd like to highlight that gnome-software is not going to use
dnf-plugin-system-upgrade, but libhif instead. So we will need to test both approaches
(that's not specific to skip-release upgrades, but the combinations multiply). So this
is going to need more resources in OpenQA, and possibly some more human resources when
debugging issues. I'm not too happy about it, after all the effort we put into
dnf-plugin-system-upgrade. Still, I think that supporting skip-release upgrades
doesn't add that much overhead, and it's worth it).