Bug 126846 - tcltk erratum creates tix packages with same EVR but different deps than FC2 packages
tcltk erratum creates tix packages with same EVR but different deps than FC2 ...
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: tcltk (Show other bugs)
1
i386 Linux
medium Severity high
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jens Petersen
Bill Huang
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2004-06-28 08:43 EDT by Barry K. Nathan
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:10 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: 8.3.5-96.0.1
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2004-06-28 19:57:41 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Barry K. Nathan 2004-06-28 08:43:41 EDT
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux ppc; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040625

Description of problem:
FC2 has a package called tix-8.1.4-96.1. The latest FC1 tcltk errata
packages also contain one called tix-8.1.4-96.1, but it's not even
from the same SRPM, and the dependencies are different. This makes
FC1->FC2 upgrades via yum next to impossible, but otherwise such
upgrades would be quite easy and effective (speaking from experience
from several such upgrades). I don't yet know what kind of effect this
has on anaconda upgrades, but I will test that after I submit this bug
report.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
tcltk-8.3.5-96.1.src.rpm, tix-8.1.4-96.1.i386.rpm

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Compare output of "rpm --requires tix" on fully updated FC1 and FC2
systems.
2. Compare output of "rpm -qi tix" on fully updated FC1 and FC2 systems.
3. Take an FC1 system and try to upgrade it to FC2 via yum. (See
http://linux.duke.edu/~skvidal/misc/fc1-fc2-yum-hints.txt for more info.)

Actual Results:  1. Dependencies are different.
2. Version numbers match, but size, build date, and build host are all
very different. Oops. This is bad.
3. yum blows up with the following:
---begin quote---
Package tix needs libtcl8.3.so, this is not available.
Package tix needs libitcl3.2.so, this is not available.
Package tix needs libitk3.2.so, this is not available.
Package tix needs itcl, this is not available.
Package tix needs libtk8.3.so, this is not available.
---end quote---


Expected Results:  Dependencies should be the same, build date should
be the same, build host should be the same, size should be the same,
yum should not blow up with these particular dependency errors.

Additional info:

A possible workaround for the yum issue would be to release an update
for FC2 that simply bumps the version number on tix. This is certainly
an ugly hack, however, and it may not be justified.

I don't yet know how this affects anaconda upgrades. I'm about to find
out.
Comment 1 Jens Petersen 2004-06-28 10:57:59 EDT
Oops, this is bad indeed. :(

[ dot release numbers should be reserved for updates... ]
Comment 2 Jens Petersen 2004-06-28 12:10:14 EDT
The tcltk update has been replaced with tcltk-8.3.5-96.0.1.

I guess people who already updated to 8.3.5-96.1 will have to
downgrade by hand though - at least I can't think of any way
round that. :-/
Comment 3 Barry K. Nathan 2004-06-28 19:57:41 EDT
FWIW, anaconda seems to replace the FC1 tix with the FC2 one even
though they had the same version number, so it only hurt upgrades via
yum, not via anaconda. Nonetheless, it's good that the two packages no
longer have the same version number, and installing the new packages
on FC1 fixes the dependency problems when trying to upgrade to FC2 via
yum, so thank you for fixing this.

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