Re: rpm gets some deps wrong?

[James Olin Oden <joden malachi lee k12 nc us>]

<snip> 
> Note that for (2), kernel-smp-2.4.21-gg2 does not really meet the
> dependency, because the dependency is for 'no epoch' meaning '0 epoch';
> but this did install with no problems, so I still don't quite follow.
> Perhaps the dependency is for 'any' epoch, or the epoch is not considered
> in the dependency for some reason?
> 
> After straightening me out there :-) what about the fact that
> kernel-smp-2.4.21-gg2, still installed, meets the dependency (% epoch).
> removal of bcm5700 is complaining about breaking the dependency
> kernel-smp = 2.4.21-gg2, which is provided by an installed rpm, not
> the one I'm removing.
> 
> Also, see me email to James (this is a circular reference, sorry) about
> the dependency being '=', not '=>'.  Even if something is going on
> with the epoch that I don't understand, versions are not '='.
> 
> Also, at install time, bcm5700 had an "epoch-less" dependency (and
> it installed without complaint).  Why, at removal time, would the epoch
> be considered?
> 
Frank,  I think I understand the problem now.

	1) You had an rpm A that depended on rpm B.
	2) The dependency in A did not explicitly specify the epoch.
	3) The provision in B did specify an epoch which of course
       	   differed from the implicit epoch of zero.
	4) You were able to install A, and rpm did not complain.
	5) Now when you go to erase A rpm is complaining.

So it looks like rpm was not comparing the epoch when installing but
is when erasing.  

I can mock up a simple test case for that against rpm 4.2 (the one that
ships with RH 9), and at least tell you if I see it.  Once I have the 
test case I can send to you, and you can run the same thing with your
version of RPM.  If it fails in either place, then you or I can write
a bugzilla report, giving Jeff the simple test case.  Finally, depending
on time (and no promises) somebody could patch for Jeff so he can get
my transactional rollback patches rolled into an official release (-;

I get back to you when I have the test completed.

Cheers...james
> thanks for your patience
> /fc
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm-list mailing list
> Rpm-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
>