[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: yum wont upgrade noarch -> arch-specific



On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 18:17:13 -0500, Michael E Brown wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 01:09:05AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 15:17:46 -0500, Michael E Brown wrote:
> > 
> > > Had a conversation with seth on irc, and it looks like this is a
> > > multilib bug.
> > > 
> > > In the meantime, I have made a workaround for this by releasing
> > >     firmware-addon-dell-1.2.11.fc6.1.noarch.rpm 
> > > and
> > >     firmware-addon-dell-1.2.11.fc6.1.{i386,x86_64,ia64}.rpm
> > > 
> > > So that people who are on multilib systems will get the updated code.
> > > Should hit the repos tomorrow.
> > 
> > Bears a huge risk of not giving expected results.
> > 
> > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/plague-results/fedora-6-extras/firmware-addon-dell/
> > 
> > 1.2.11-1.fc6.1/
> >   -> noarch
> > 1.2.11-1.fc6.2/
> >   -> i386, x86_64
> > 
> > Only highest EVR will be published. The noarch build won't make it into
> > the repo, since it's older.
> 
> Nope. The repo publishes both.

It doesn't, because the pushscript only publishes the latest EVR of what
is found in the needsign repo. Just believe me.

> At this exact moment, 1.2.6-1.noarch and
> 1.2.10-1.{i386,x86_64} are all in the repo happily together.

That is only because they've been published on separate days.
One on March 29th, the other on April 8th:

http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/6/i386/repoview/firmware-addon-dell.html

Both are in the repo because two EVRs are kept in the repo.

> I saw this
> behaviour with 'repomanage', so if they are using repomanage, they will
> both stay in the repo until somebody manually removes one.

It has been replaced with repoprune several months ago, because repoprune
is approx. four times faster and removes everything that doesn't have a
corresponding source rpm. It simplifies repository management in that
orphaned/obsolete sub-packages are deleted automatically.
 
> > 
> > And even if both builds (both src.rpms and their binary rpms) were
> > published, the i386 users would get an update to the i386 build and not
> 
> This doesnt sound right. In the first place, there shouldnt be anybody
> with both installed, because i386 upgrades from noarch->i386 just fine.

Well, as I've shown a few hours ago in bugzilla, i386 users have the i386
build (1.2.10), which is the latest in the repo.  And since your newer
i386 build is newer than the noarch build in the needsign queue, the users
would get the newest i386 build again even if the noarch build were
published, too.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]