On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 08:24, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 15:11, seth vidal wrote: > > > > 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. > > Agreed. > > > 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. > > I failed to mention that I'm using 1.95 on RH9 (rpm-4.2-0.69) and 1.0 on > RH8 (rpm-4.1-9 from JBJ's testing area). Dunno if this makes a > difference. in my understading rpm 4.1-9 didn't have that epoch behavior ALSO on rhl 8.0 you're using via the rpm404 compatibility libraries. So it uses rpm404's labelCompare call, not rpm 4.1's. > Makes sense, but IMO yum 1.0 needs to be more consistent. As said, yum > check-update lists the package as something that could be updated, but > yum install and yum update refuse to actually update it. hmm. that is interesting. I didn't catch that from your last email. -sv
