On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 10:43 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 07/21/2010 10:31 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > I did a "yum upgrade" and was offered: > > > > qbittorrent x86_64 1:2.2.8-2.fc13 > > > > even though I currently have: > > > > $ rpm -q qbittorrent > > qbittorrent-2.2.9-1.fc13.x86_64 > > > > (Note the version numbers) > > > > I said 'N' because it seems at least counter-intuitive. Is there any way > > to check that the proposed upgrade really supersedes the installed > > version, or should I complain to the qbt maintainer? > > > > poc > > > > You see the 1: before the version number in the version you were > offered? That means that an epoch bump occurred (this is used primarily > to deal with when a package has changed version number schemes and the > new version numbers are lower than the old ones) > > It is also done in very rare occasions to force a downgrade from a > known-bad version of a piece of software. > > - From the update description: > * Tue Jul 20 2010 Leigh Scott <leigh123linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> - > 2.2.8-2 - add epoch and revert version to 2.2.8 as the newer versions > violate the bundled libs guidelines > > The newer version 2.2.9 was in violation of Fedora policies > (specifically, bundled libs can have unfixed security vulnerabilities), > so the epoch was bumped to force a downgrade. Thanks Stephen (and Mamoru). I did notice the epoch number but "rpm -qi" on the current version (2.2.9) doesn't show the epoch so I wasn't sure. poc -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
