Bug 189308 - RFE: Display NEVRA when installing/upgrading packages
RFE: Display NEVRA when installing/upgrading packages
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
Classification: Red Hat
Component: anaconda (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Paul Nasrat
Mike McLean
: FutureFeature
Depends On:
Blocks: FC6Target
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2006-04-18 22:04 EDT by Gordon Rowell
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:07 EST (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2006-08-18 15:43:23 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Display NEVRA when installing/upgrading packages (2.88 KB, patch)
2006-04-18 22:04 EDT, Gordon Rowell
no flags Details | Diff

  None (edit)
Description Gordon Rowell 2006-04-18 22:04:36 EDT
This an SME Server patch - pushing upstream for consideration. The attached
patch shows the name-epoch:version-release.arch of packages being installed or
upgraded. We've found it very useful and hope you do too.

Patch is against anaconda-

/root/{install,upgrade}.log shows:
Upgrading e-smith-email-0:4.15.4-17.noarch
Upgrading e-smith-pop3-0:1.1.0-03.noarch
Upgrading smeserver-spamassassin-0:1.3.0-06.noarch
Upgrading comps-2:4.2CENTOS-0.20051011.i386
Upgrading comps-0:4.1SMEServer-0.20050914.i386

The following packages were available in this version but NOT upgraded:
DCC-0:1.3.0-12.el4.at.i386 (already installed)
MAKEDEV-0:3.15-2.i386 (already installed)
acpid-0:1.0.3-2.i386 (already installed)
anacron-0:2.3-32.i386 (already installed)
apmd-1:3.0.2-24.i386 (already installed)
Comment 1 Gordon Rowell 2006-04-18 22:04:36 EDT
Created attachment 127962 [details]
Display NEVRA when installing/upgrading packages
Comment 2 Jeremy Katz 2006-04-19 11:19:03 EDT
In the current tree, we display N-V-R.A -- what do you see as the benefit of
adding the epoch?
Comment 3 Gordon Rowell 2006-04-19 17:56:42 EDT
(In reply to comment #2)
> In the current tree, we display N-V-R.A -- what do you see as the benefit of
> adding the epoch?

We've had a few upgrade cases where someone has forked a package (e.g. to patch
a security issue on an old version) and bumped the Epoch in order to outvote the
main stream. One of our major tasks with the recent SME Server (nee e-smith)
realignment with had been to kill off all of those forks (our problem, not
yours). One example is proftpd which was patched, but we have now moved to the
DAG repository version.

The smaller N-V-R with the bigger Epoch wins over the newer package with the
smaller Epoch. Without the log of the Epoch, the package is "silently" not
upgraded even though the later N-V-R appears to win. This causes a bit of
head-scratching, which is removed once the Epoch is displayed.

The upgrade behaviour is correct, but the addition of the Epoch log makes it
obvious why the choice has been made by anaconda.
Comment 4 Paul Nasrat 2006-05-22 12:42:57 EDT
Changed for FC6/RHEL5
Comment 5 Gordon Rowell 2006-05-22 21:07:54 EDT
Hi there,

The patches aren't quite right as they don't differentiate an Epoch of zero from
no Epoch:


If we fix that before you do, I'll attach revised patches.
Comment 6 Daniel Riek 2006-08-08 08:23:34 EDT
Moving request to RHEL5. PM ACK as it seems to be done there.

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