[Yum] Missing Epoch / Epoch: 0 handling in 1.0 vs 1.95
skvidal at phy.duke.edu
Fri Apr 11 12:11:07 UTC 2003
On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 05:42, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> Epoch handling seems to be different in yum 1.0 and 1.95, and I think
> 1.0 should be fixed. Here's the scenario from a recent JPackage
> (www.jpackage.org) RPM. Yes, it's kinda packaging bug, but I think yum
> 1.0 should have handled it, 1.95 did ok.
> jakarta-commons-logging = 0:1.0.2-3jpp
> jakarta-commons-logging = (none):1.0.3-1jpp
> ie. the Epoch was accidentally dropped from 1.0.3-1jpp. Now when I have
> 1.0.2-3jpp installed, both yum 1.0 and 1.95 list the epochless
> 1.0.3-1jpp in check-update. 1.95 does the right thing, it actually
> installs it with update or install, but 1.0 doesn't, it says:
> Errors installing:
> ('package jakarta-commons-logging-1.0.2-3jpp (which is newer than jakarta-commons-logging-1.0.3-1jpp) is already installed', (8, None, 0L))
> So 1.0 seems to think no-epoch < 0, which I think should be fixed to
> no-epoch == 0.
This sounds to me like the behavior in yum 1.0 is wrong.
OR it could be b/c yum 1.0 is for rpm 4.0.4 and yum 1.95 is for rpm 4.2
that you're seeing the difference.
and rpm 4.0.4 considers no epoch < 0
rpm 4.2 seems to consider no epoch == 0
So I don't think yum should be "fixed" to violate what rpm thinks for
that version of rpm.
More information about the Yum