On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 08:04 -0700, Shahms King wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Panu Matilainen wrote: > *snip* > >> > >> I strongly suspect the problem lies with RPM always comparing an > >> arch-specific package as "newer" than a noarch package, but I'm not > >> certain. > > > > RPM will happily upgrade such a package, it's yum-specific behavior to > > refuse to change package arch. Set exactarch=0 in yum.conf and it'll > > upgrade that. The other way around this is renaming the package to > > something else. > > > > The behavior exists both with and without exactarch. > > >> Note that these problems *appear* to have been fixed in rawhide as the > >> extras development repository does not contain the offending packages. > >> > >> Additionally, trying to track down any potential problem packages is > >> difficult as repoquery will not check versioned requires and insists > >> that python-0:2.4.2-3.2.1.i386 provides "python < 2.4", which it most > >> assuredly does not. > > > > Huh, you're saying 'repoquery --provides python' on FC5 says "python < > > 2.4"? I have hard time figuring out how it would come up with such a > > thing if it doesn't exist in the package but... Please show me the exact > > command to reproduce that so I can check what the heck is going on. > > > > Oh and there are such gems around, eg perl has "Provides: perl <= > > 4:5.8.8" which looks pretty dubious to me. > > > > - Panu - > > Sorry, I mis-typed. Repoquery, when asked --requires --resolve on the > offending packages will list the python package as satisfying the > requirements, which it doesn't. Similarly, both rpm and repoquery don't > deal with versioned '--whatrequires' requests (such as --whatrequires > 'python < 2.4'). > > I'm not sure if this is a big deal or not, but I have encountered two > packages exhibiting this problem so far and was trying find any more > potential problem packages and having minimal luck. I wouldn't be > surprised if python-reportlab.i386 is the last remaining problem > package, but the yum-or-rpm behavior that ignores newer noarch packages > still seems like a bug to me. > Could you report this bug in bugzilla? I've not heard of it happening and I'd like to know more about how you can make it happen. Thanks, -sv -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
