Description of problem: Having an uppercase package name causes a dependency failure when a particular release is specified in a 'Requires:' field. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): rpm-4.4.2-46.fc7 How reproducible: Always. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Build PKG-A ... rpmbuild --target=noarch -bb PKG-A.spec 2. Install PKG-A RPM ... sudo rpm -ihv /path/to/PKG-A-1.0-A1.noarch.rpm 3. Build pkg_b ... rpmbuild --target=noarch -bb pkg_b.spec 4. Install pkg_b RPM ... sudo rpm -ihv /path/to/pkg_b-1.0-1.noarch.rpm Actual results: pkg_b installs Expected results: RPM reports "error: Failed dependencies: PKG_A = 1.0-A1 is needed by pkg_b-1.0-1.noarch" Additional info: * pkg_b requires a specific version and release of PKG-A. * I set %_topdir and %_tmppath in my ~/.rpmmacros to allow building RPMs by non-root users. * Yes, I know that (a) this is a very contrived example and that (b) the Fedora package naming conventions advise against non-numerics in the release field except for pre-releases and (c) requiring a particular release of a package should generally be avoided because is places a dependency on /how/ a package is built. * Assuming this is an actual bug, I'm having a hard time where the bug is in the source code.
Created attachment 161923 [details] specfile for PKG-A, a package with no dependencies and a non-numeric in the release field
Created attachment 161924 [details] pkg_b specfile, a package dependent on a specific version and release of PKG-A
Correction: I obviously swapped the Expected and Actual results in the original post, sorry. Expected results: pkg_b installs Actual results: RPM reports "error: Failed dependencies: PKG_A = 1.0-A1 is needed by pkg_b-1.0-1.noarch" Also, here's a link to the section in the package naming guidelines regarding non-numerics in the Release field: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#NonNumericRelease And, UGH! There was just an error in pkg_b.spec. Dang underscores. Sorry for the whitenoise.