Bug 32233 - mozilla-pre0.8.1 "breaks" nautilus
Summary: mozilla-pre0.8.1 "breaks" nautilus
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Raw Hide
Classification: Retired
Component: mozilla
Version: 1.0
Hardware: i386
OS: Linux
low
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Christopher Blizzard
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2001-03-19 15:29 UTC by Stephen John Smoogen
Modified: 2008-05-01 15:38 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2001-03-19 16:17:52 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Stephen John Smoogen 2001-03-19 15:29:51 UTC
This is a heads up versus something that can be fixed. The new tree of
mozilla (mozilla-pre0.8.1) causes Eazel's nautilus to complain on a -Uvh or
-ivh. This is because pre0.8.1 <= 0.8 in rpm versioning. I am not sure if
this can be fixed with a superceded in the spec file or if it is worth it.

To get around this problem you can do the following:

rpm -Uvh --nodeps mozilla*rpm 

and nautilus will continue to work.

Comment 1 Christopher Blizzard 2001-03-19 15:57:36 UTC
Where did you get that 0.8 rpm?  The serial on the rpms should be consitent.

Comment 2 Stephen John Smoogen 2001-03-19 16:10:18 UTC
Got the RPM from the people.redhat.com page. I think I am correctly following
previous line where to report problems for those RPMS.

http://people.redhat.com/blizzard/software/RH7/RPMS/i386/pre0.8.1-1/

The RPMS up to
http://people.redhat.com/blizzard/software/RH7/RPMS/i386/2001031800-0/

were able to install ontop of the Eazel nautilus. I think the name pre is what
is causing RPM problems with nautilus's DependsOn

Again this was mainly meant to be a heads up for people possibly searching for
problems on these RPMS, and no need for a FIX that I know of.



Comment 3 Christopher Blizzard 2001-03-19 16:17:41 UTC
OK, I guess that makes sense.  Well, when 0.8.1 is officially released it should
be a higher number.

Comment 4 Christopher Blizzard 2001-06-09 21:53:33 UTC
This wasn't really a bug since it was just version numbers.


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