Bug 104981 - RHN and up2date use inconsistent package version comparison algorithms
Summary: RHN and up2date use inconsistent package version comparison algorithms
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Network
Classification: Retired
Component: RHN/Web Site
Version: RHN Stable
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
high
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Chip Turner
QA Contact: Fanny Augustin
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 101259
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2003-09-24 11:04 UTC by Chris Ricker
Modified: 2007-04-18 16:57 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2003-10-02 14:58:37 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Chris Ricker 2003-09-24 11:04:09 UTC
I have systems subscribed to

* Red Hat Linux (Severn) 9.0.93 - Beta
* Red Hat Linux (Severn) 9.0.93 - Beta Updates

On these systems, up2date shows them as being fully updated. The RHN web
interface, however, consistently lists the following as being available for all
of these systems:

  	 gdb-5.3post-1.20021129.37 as an upgrade for gdb-5.3.90-0.20030710.21

The problem, I guess, is that RHN is comparing 5.3post as > 5.3.90, while
up2date is making the same comparison and finding 5.3post < 5.3.90 (neither
package has an epoch).

To avoid sanity issues for end users, the web front-end and the up2date
front-end really should use the same comparison algorithm, and both should be
consistent with rpm.

FWIW, when rpm makes the same comparison, it finds 5.3post < 5.3.90, so that's
what both up2date and RHN should do....

[kaboom@skuld kaboom]$ rpm -q gdb
gdb-5.3.90-0.20030710.29
[kaboom@skuld kaboom]$ sudo rpm -Fvh gdb-5.3post-1.20021129.37.i386.rpm 
[kaboom@skuld kaboom]$ rpm -q gdb
gdb-5.3.90-0.20030710.29
[kaboom@skuld kaboom]$

Comment 1 Chris Ricker 2003-09-24 11:06:36 UTC
BTW, I think it was a fairly recent change in rpm that in version comparison,
numbers are always greater than letters (so 90 > post). Presumably the RHN web
side just wasn't updated when that was changed....

Comment 2 Bret McMillan 2003-09-24 14:37:06 UTC
Reassigning to appropriate component...

Comment 3 Mihai Ibanescu 2003-09-24 15:12:20 UTC
This has been fixed, but not deployed to production yet.

Comment 4 Josef Komenda 2003-10-02 14:49:19 UTC
Chris,

This went live 09/30 - can you confirm? 

Comment 5 Chris Ricker 2003-10-02 14:58:37 UTC
Hmm, guess me closing this was lost in the Great Bugzilla Crash of '03 ;-)

It works for me now, thanks!


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.