Bug 186613 - yum fails to upgrade wine
Summary: yum fails to upgrade wine
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: yum
Version: 4
Hardware: i586
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jeremy Katz
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-03-24 18:23 UTC by james
Modified: 2014-01-21 22:53 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-03-24 18:27:06 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description james 2006-03-24 18:23:01 UTC
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
yum-2.4.1-1.fc4

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
$ rpm -q wine
wine-20050419-1fc3winehq

"wine-0.9.10-1.fc4" is in
 http://fedoraproject.org/extras/4/i386/wine-0.9.10-1.fc4.i386.rpm


$ sudo yum -y update wine
Setting up Update Process
Setting up repositories
Reading repository metadata in from local files
Could not find update match for wine
No Packages marked for Update/Obsoletion


Additional info:

[extras]
name=Fedora Extras $releasever - $basearch
mirrorlist=http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors/fedora-extras-$releasever
enabled=1
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-extras
gpgcheck=1

Comment 1 Seth Vidal 2006-03-24 18:27:06 UTC
why do you think that:
20050419 is a lesser version than 0.9.10?

Yum's not failing to upgrade anything. 0.9.10 is not a version upgrade over
20050419, not by a long shot.


Comment 2 james 2006-03-24 18:46:54 UTC
Because I don't know any better!  So then "lesser" and "greater" is strictly
alphanumeric sort order?  That would be nice to see in the documentation.

I erased the old wine, and then yum install wine seems to work fine.

Thanks.

Comment 3 Seth Vidal 2006-03-24 18:49:53 UTC
no. it's not strictly alphanumeric sort order and the rpm version comparison
routines  are fairly well documented.

In the case you presented you weren't do anything complicated - just one number
vs another number.

which is higher for you? 0 or 20050419?



Comment 4 james 2006-03-24 19:00:17 UTC
> no. it's not strictly alphanumeric sort order and the rpm version comparison
> routines  are fairly well documented.

Perhaps - you don't say _where_ version comparison is documented.

Still, this was an issue with the _yum_ sort order, NOT the _rpm_ sort order. 
Did you mean to suggest that yum uses rpm for version comparison?


Comment 5 Seth Vidal 2006-03-24 19:03:53 UTC
1. the version comparison is documented in the rpm devel docs.
2. yum's sort order is using rpmlib and rpm's version comparison routines to do
the comparison.



Comment 6 james 2006-03-24 19:17:27 UTC
Ok.  Thanks for that.


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