Bug 804558

Summary: grub2-mkconfig sorting fails to place 3.2.10 first.
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Gilboa Davara <gilboad>
Component: grub2Assignee: Peter Jones <pjones>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 16CC: bcl, dennis, hansecke, mads, me, pjones
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-04-19 21:29:16 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:
Attachments:
Description Flags
grub-mkconfig_lib sort patch none

Description Gilboa Davara 2012-03-19 09:09:31 UTC 
As the title suggests, 3.2.10 was pushed to Fedora 16 mid-last-week.
grub2-mkconfig places it last (due to the 3.2.<1>0.
As suggested in GNU mailing list, sort version should be used instead of numerical sort.

Patch attached, tested on several machines.

- Gilboa
Comment 1 Hans Ecke 2012-03-20 18:10:06 UTC 
Hi Gilboa-

I see the same bug. It is the version_test_numeric function within /usr/lib/grub/grub-mkconfig_lib which does not work very well. I'd love to see your fix, but I can not see any attachments to this bug. Are you sure you added it?

Cheers

Hans
Comment 2 Gilboa Davara 2012-03-21 11:32:01 UTC 
Created attachment 571685 [details]
grub-mkconfig_lib sort patch

Sorry, my bad.
Comment 3 Hans Ecke 2012-03-21 15:26:07 UTC 
Ah, I wasn't aware of the "-V" option to sort. Good to know. Works fine here. Could somebody please apply this patch (and/or submit to upstream)?
Comment 4 Gilboa Davara 2012-03-21 17:53:56 UTC 
I'll free some time to create a patch against the actual grub package and post it here.
As I said in the OP, upstream is already aware of the problem (I've created the patch based upon the upstream suggested solution)

- Gilboa
Comment 5 Mads Kiilerich 2012-04-17 23:15:45 UTC 
This has been fixed upstream in 2.0 beta 3.
Comment 6 Mads Kiilerich 2012-04-19 21:29:16 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 678840 ***