Bug 550027

Summary: repoquery -qf implies \n whereas rpm doesn't
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Matěj Cepl <mcepl>
Component: yum-utilsAssignee: Seth Vidal <skvidal>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: rawhideCC: james.antill, matt, maxamillion, mcepl, pmatilai, roland, tim.lauridsen
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-01-12 18:42:33 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 Matěj Cepl 2009-12-23 10:37:08 UTC
Description of problem:

repoquery -qa --qf="%{NAME}\t%{SOURCERPM}\n" \*sync\* 

prints blank line between each entry whereas

rpm -qa --qf="%{NAME}\t%{SOURCERPM}\n" \*sync\* 

doesn't. It should be unified IMHO and given the age of rpm, I guess it should get precedence.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
yum-utils-1.1.24-2.fc12.noarch

Comment 1 seth vidal 2009-12-23 12:53:16 UTC
given that panu wrote this code in repoquery, I'll leave it up to him. But I suspect it was written this way b/c the rpm --qf silliness just confused users.

And so rather than duplicate those errors he fixed it.

Comment 2 Matěj Cepl 2009-12-24 01:00:43 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> given that panu wrote this code in repoquery, I'll leave it up to him. But I
> suspect it was written this way b/c the rpm --qf silliness just confused users.
> 
> And so rather than duplicate those errors he fixed it.  

Well, although I agree that repoquery behavior is more sane, but I believe that consistency is more important than sainty.

Panu?

Comment 3 Panu Matilainen 2010-01-04 08:02:06 UTC
Can't remember for sure but I suspect the newline behavior was basically just for sanity's sake. While the queryformat strings of rpm and repoquery are similar, there are numerous incompatibilities between them, you can't expect to copy-paste between rpm and repoquery query formats anyway. Me thinks making such a fundamental change after at this point (repoquery is several years old too and widely used) would be far more pain than the consistency gain.

Comment 4 seth vidal 2010-01-12 18:42:33 UTC
agreed

Comment 5 seth vidal 2010-05-11 02:00:54 UTC
*** Bug 590920 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 6 Matt McCutchen 2011-08-30 03:55:46 UTC
*** Bug 734259 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***