Bug 461354 - "package file is a manifest" not documented for -F/-U/-i
Summary: "package file is a manifest" not documented for -F/-U/-i
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: rpm
Version: 9
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
low
low
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Panu Matilainen
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2008-09-06 12:06 UTC by Ville Skyttä
Modified: 2009-04-14 07:13 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-04-14 07:13:44 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
More man page clarifications (2.60 KB, patch)
2009-04-06 20:23 UTC, Ville Skyttä
no flags Details | Diff

Description Ville Skyttä 2008-09-06 12:06:46 UTC
The "package file is a manifest" fallback behavior which is documented for -p/--package for queries appears to also be in effect for -F, -U, and -i in addition to queries:

$ echo bar > foo
$ sudo rpm -ivh foo
error: open of bar failed: No such file or directory

This is not documented in the rpm man page, would be nice to see it mentioned there.

Comment 1 Jeff Johnson 2008-09-06 20:29:44 UTC
Please make sure that behavior with /dev/random is fully documented as well.

Comment 2 Panu Matilainen 2008-09-18 10:29:39 UTC
Manifest behavior is now documented in the install/upgrade-options of updatream (english) man-page.

Behavior with /dev/random is as expected so I don't see it needing extra documentation ;)

Comment 3 Ville Skyttä 2009-04-06 20:23:35 UTC
Created attachment 338390 [details]
More man page clarifications

I'd suggest some further clarification to the man page - currently it can be interpreted that the manifest behavior applies only to -F, not -U and -i.  Suggested patch against rpm.org master attached, along with a slight improvement to -F's description, and a syntax fix.

Comment 4 Panu Matilainen 2009-04-09 13:19:56 UTC
Applied upstream and included in 4.7.0-rc1. Can/will pull into older branches too, but I suppose this doesn't really need separate tracking for F9?

Comment 5 Ville Skyttä 2009-04-09 18:08:02 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> I suppose this doesn't really need separate tracking for F9?  

Not at all as far as I'm concerned.

Comment 6 Panu Matilainen 2009-04-14 07:13:44 UTC
Ok, lets close this then.


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