On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 15:29, seth vidal wrote: > On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 08:24, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > 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. Oops, I forgot that, thanks for the heads up. > > 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. Does this mean that this is now on The List? :) -- \/ille Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi
