Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 102715
samba spec needs epoch in versioned dependecies
Last modified: 2014-08-31 19:25:14 EDT
From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030703 Description of problem: Requires: pam >= 0.64 %{auth} samba-common = %{version} Requires: logrotate >= 3.4 initscripts >= 5.54-1 In every case where a version is used within a dependency, an explicit epoch MUST be listed in order to avoid future epoch promotion problems. rpm assumes wrongly the missing epoch of this dependency when the dependency's epoch increments while version decrements. In such cases the older package wins the version comparison, creating either an unsolvable dependency clash or upgrade to the older version of the package. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): samba-3.0.0-3beta3
Requires: pam >= 0:0.64 %{auth} samba-common = %{epoch}:%{version} Requires: logrotate >= 0:3.4 initscripts >= 0:5.54-1 Also... every occurance of "samba-common = %{version}" should become "samba-common = %{epoch}:%{version}" No need for package rebuild with these changes, but next time you roll samba please add. can I have your permission to checkin these changes?
I checked in this fix in HEAD, and modified my local copies for all other branches. It's too bad this didn't make it in before 3.0.2, but it'll be in the next set of packages I build.
This change seems to be making up2date complain: "Unresolvable chain of dependencies: samba-client-3.0.2-7 requires samba-common = %{epoch}:3.0.2". I don't know whose bug that is. By the way, why isn't it 3.0.2-7 instead of 3.0.2? Currently, you can upgrade samba-common to to a newer release without upgrading samba-client.
Strange... up2date is not expanding the %{epoch} variable? That isn't right. Are you seeing this behavior on FC1 or FC2 test? http://www.fedora.us/tempspecs/stable/clamav.spec See this spec for an example of sub-packages that depend on specific versions of other sub-packages. You are right that we should probably add the %{release} too so it requires the exact same revision. Jay's choice here.
It's in FC2 test. Should I file an up2date bug?
Fixed in 3.0.2a-1, just built for rawhide.
An errata has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on the solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-259.html