Bug 186613
Summary: | yum fails to upgrade wine | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | james |
Component: | yum | Assignee: | Jeremy Katz <katzj> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 4 | CC: | katzj |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | i586 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-03-24 18:27:06 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
james
2006-03-24 18:23:01 UTC
why do you think that: 20050419 is a lesser version than 0.9.10? Yum's not failing to upgrade anything. 0.9.10 is not a version upgrade over 20050419, not by a long shot. Because I don't know any better! So then "lesser" and "greater" is strictly alphanumeric sort order? That would be nice to see in the documentation. I erased the old wine, and then yum install wine seems to work fine. Thanks. no. it's not strictly alphanumeric sort order and the rpm version comparison routines are fairly well documented. In the case you presented you weren't do anything complicated - just one number vs another number. which is higher for you? 0 or 20050419? > no. it's not strictly alphanumeric sort order and the rpm version comparison
> routines are fairly well documented.
Perhaps - you don't say _where_ version comparison is documented.
Still, this was an issue with the _yum_ sort order, NOT the _rpm_ sort order.
Did you mean to suggest that yum uses rpm for version comparison?
1. the version comparison is documented in the rpm devel docs. 2. yum's sort order is using rpmlib and rpm's version comparison routines to do the comparison. Ok. Thanks for that. |