While peeking at my list of orphaned packages, I noticed these, from f8:

grub-0.97-33.1.fc8.x86_64
hal-info-20080607-2.fc8.noarch

In the case of grub, it looks like the f9 distro tag isn't being
considered as newer than f8 when the version is otherwise the same (bug?).


For hal-info, it looks suspiciously like an f8 update postdated the f9
release and is versioned such that the f8 is "newer". I guess the
even-newer f10 package will just "fix" this, but it's still strange.


Any thoughts?

--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
In the beginning, there were not enough colors. -- Guy Keren

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:59:55 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

> While peeking at my list of orphaned packages, I noticed these, from f8:
>
> grub-0.97-33.1.fc8.x86_64
> hal-info-20080607-2.fc8.noarch
>
> In the case of grub, it looks like the f9 distro tag isn't being
> considered as newer than f8 when the version is otherwise the same (bug?).

Packaging mistake. In RPM version comparison, numbers are "higher than"
letters:

1 > a
1 > f
1 > fc9
33.1 > 33.fc9
33.1.fc8 > 33.fc9

> For hal-info, it looks suspiciously like an f8 update postdated the f9
> release and is versioned such that the f8 is "newer". I guess the
> even-newer f10 package will just "fix" this, but it's still strange.
>
> Any thoughts?

Packaging mistakes. Such updates for older dist branches ought to
increase the package release at the very right: 1.fc8 --> 1.fc8.1 --> 1.fc8.2
and so on, to stay "older than" 1.fc9

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Michael Schwendt wrote:

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:59:55 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:


While peeking at my list of orphaned packages, I noticed these, from f8:

grub-0.97-33.1.fc8.x86_64
hal-info-20080607-2.fc8.noarch

In the case of grub, it looks like the f9 distro tag isn't being
considered as newer than f8 when the version is otherwise the same (bug?).


Packaging mistake. In RPM version comparison, numbers are "higher than"
letters:

1 > a
1 > f
1 > fc9
33.1 > 33.fc9
33.1.fc8 > 33.fc9


Ah, I missed that the f8 version was "33.1.fc8", not "33.fc8".

For hal-info, it looks suspiciously like an f8 update postdated the f9
release and is versioned such that the f8 is "newer". I guess the
even-newer f10 package will just "fix" this, but it's still strange.


Any thoughts?


Packaging mistakes. Such updates for older dist branches ought to
increase the package release at the very right: 1.fc8 --> 1.fc8.1 --> 1.fc8.2
and so on, to stay "older than" 1.fc9


:-)

Oh, well, guess I'll wait for f10 to have versions that actually look newer.

--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
In the beginning, there were not enough colors. -- Guy Keren

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Matthew Woehlke <mw_triad <at> users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> While peeking at my list of orphaned packages, I noticed these, from f8:
> grub-0.97-33.1.fc8.x86_64
> hal-info-20080607-2.fc8.noarch

I already filed bugs for both of these:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469486
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469487

The problem with grub is that the disttag was incorrectly bumped. It should have
been 33%{?dist} or 33%{?dist}.1, not 33.1%{%dist}. Now there MUST be a F9 upgrade
bumping the version to at least 33.1%{%dist} even if there are no other changes,
there's no other way to fix this.

Kevin Kofler

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> writes:
> The problem with grub is that the disttag was incorrectly bumped. It should have
> been 33%{?dist} or 33%{?dist}.1, not 33.1%{%dist}. Now there MUST be a F9 upgrade
> bumping the version to at least 33.1%{%dist} even if there are no other changes,
> there's no other way to fix this.

This seems like a relatively easy mistake to make, and one that could be
caught automatically by bodhi or some other part of the packaging
infrastructure. Is such a test easy enough to be worth installing?

regards, tom lane

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 21:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> This seems like a relatively easy mistake to make, and one that could be
> caught automatically by bodhi or some other part of the packaging
> infrastructure. Is such a test easy enough to be worth installing?

We have the start of some scripts to do automated checking of these on a
daily or on a push by push basis. I plan on working more on these once
F10 is out the door.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Jesse Keating wrote:

On Thu, 2008-11-06 at 21:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:

This seems like a relatively easy mistake to make, and one that could be
caught automatically by bodhi or some other part of the packaging
infrastructure. Is such a test easy enough to be worth installing?


We have the start of some scripts to do automated checking of these on a
daily or on a push by push basis. I plan on working more on these once
F10 is out the door.


Sounds nice. Thanks for the info, all.

--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
No .sig for you! NEXT! -- Unknown

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list