On 18/01/2008, Nigel Henry <cave.dnb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Now I comment out freshrpms, and uncomment the livna repo. I've shown just recently that the x264 package from livna is seen as "older than" the package from freshrpms despite offering a newer snapshot of the library. In other words, the older software libx264.so.55 will upgrade the newer software libx264.so.56 due to how the packages are versioned. And of course the change in the library version additionally breaks package dependencies: $ rpmdev-vercmp 0 0.0.0 0.3.20070529.fc7 0 0 0.10.20070819.lvn8 0:0.0.0-0.3.20070529.fc7 is newer That translates to Epoch: 0 Version: 0.0.0 Release: 0.3.20070529.fc7 compared with Epoch: 0 Version: 0 Release: 0.10.20070819.lvn8 and is like that because "0.0.0" is higher than "0" in RPM version comparison. Even if both packages used "Version: 0", it would be necessary to agree on a common "Release" scheme as the date of the software here is very important. Alternatively, creating a separate namespace for every library major version would have worked, too. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
