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

Re: Old broken packages



On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 08:04 -0700, Shahms King wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Panu Matilainen wrote:
> *snip*
> >>
> >> I strongly suspect the problem lies with RPM always comparing an
> >> arch-specific package as "newer" than a noarch package, but I'm not
> >> certain.
> > 
> > RPM will happily upgrade such a package, it's yum-specific behavior to
> > refuse to change package arch. Set exactarch=0 in yum.conf and it'll
> > upgrade that. The other way around this is renaming the package to
> > something else.
> > 
> 
> The behavior exists both with and without exactarch.
> 
> >> Note that these problems *appear* to have been fixed in rawhide as the
> >> extras development repository does not contain the offending packages.
> >>
> >> Additionally, trying to track down any potential problem packages is
> >> difficult as repoquery will not check versioned requires and insists
> >> that python-0:2.4.2-3.2.1.i386 provides "python < 2.4", which it most
> >> assuredly does not.
> > 
> > Huh, you're saying 'repoquery --provides python' on FC5 says "python <
> > 2.4"? I have hard time figuring out how it would come up with such a
> > thing if it doesn't exist in the package but... Please show me the exact
> > command to reproduce that so I can check what the heck is going on.
> > 
> > Oh and there are such gems around, eg perl has "Provides: perl <=
> > 4:5.8.8" which looks pretty dubious to me.
> > 
> >     - Panu -
> 
> Sorry, I mis-typed.  Repoquery, when asked --requires --resolve on the
> offending packages will list the python package as satisfying the
> requirements, which it doesn't.  Similarly, both rpm and repoquery don't
> deal with versioned '--whatrequires' requests (such as --whatrequires
> 'python < 2.4').
> 
> I'm not sure if this is a big deal or not, but I have encountered two
> packages exhibiting this problem so far and was trying find any more
> potential problem packages and having minimal luck. I wouldn't be
> surprised if python-reportlab.i386 is the last remaining problem
> package, but the yum-or-rpm behavior that ignores newer noarch packages
> still seems like a bug to me.
> 

Could you report this bug in bugzilla? I've not heard of it happening
and I'd like to know more about how you can make it happen.

Thanks,
-sv



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