On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 05:42, Ville Skyttä wrote: > Epoch handling seems to be different in yum 1.0 and 1.95, and I think > 1.0 should be fixed. Here's the scenario from a recent JPackage > (www.jpackage.org) RPM. Yes, it's kinda packaging bug, but I think yum > 1.0 should have handled it, 1.95 did ok. > > jakarta-commons-logging = 0:1.0.2-3jpp > jakarta-commons-logging = (none):1.0.3-1jpp > > ie. the Epoch was accidentally dropped from 1.0.3-1jpp. Now when I have > 1.0.2-3jpp installed, both yum 1.0 and 1.95 list the epochless > 1.0.3-1jpp in check-update. 1.95 does the right thing, it actually > installs it with update or install, but 1.0 doesn't, it says: > > Errors installing: > ('package jakarta-commons-logging-1.0.2-3jpp (which is newer than jakarta-commons-logging-1.0.3-1jpp) is already installed', (8, None, 0L)) > > So 1.0 seems to think no-epoch < 0, which I think should be fixed to > no-epoch == 0. This sounds to me like the behavior in yum 1.0 is wrong. OR it could be b/c yum 1.0 is for rpm 4.0.4 and yum 1.95 is for rpm 4.2 that you're seeing the difference. and rpm 4.0.4 considers no epoch < 0 rpm 4.2 seems to consider no epoch == 0 So I don't think yum should be "fixed" to violate what rpm thinks for that version of rpm. -sv