Bug 83099 - Dependency on version stops release-only upgrade
Dependency on version stops release-only upgrade
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Red Hat Raw Hide
Classification: Retired
Component: gdk-pixbuf (Show other bugs)
1.0
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Owen Taylor
Brian Brock
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2003-01-30 03:05 EST by Ralph Loader
Modified: 2007-04-18 12:50 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2003-06-10 18:17:49 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Ralph Loader 2003-01-30 03:05:29 EST
Description of problem:

Upgrading from "gdk-pixbuf-0.18.0-6" to "gdk-pixbuf-0.18.0-7" fails when there
is a dependency "gdk-pixbuf = 0.18.0":

# rpm -q gdk-pixbuf gdk-pixbuf-gnome
gdk-pixbuf-0.18.0-6
gdk-pixbuf-gnome-0.18.0-7
# rpm -Uvh gdk-pixbuf-0.18.0-7.i386.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
        gdk-pixbuf = 0.18.0 is needed by (installed) gdk-pixbuf-gnome-0.18.0-7

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

# rpm -q rpm
rpm-4.2-0.63

How reproducible:

Every time. Seems to happen with other packages too: if there is a dependency
foo=x then I can't upgrade from foo-x-y to foo-x-(y+1).

Actual results:

package upgrade fails.

Expected results:

The package upgrade above should succeed.
Comment 1 Owen Taylor 2003-01-30 23:53:42 EST
What's the story with this, Bill? I don't immediately see anything
wrong with the gdk-pixbuf Requires:.
Comment 2 Bill Nottingham 2003-01-31 00:06:45 EST
The requirement doesn't have an epoch matching the epoch of the main package;
that's why RPM is throwing the error.
Comment 3 Ralph Loader 2003-01-31 00:46:12 EST
rpm is not being consistent, as far as I can see. If I upgrade from both at
...-6 to both at ...-7 there is no error. When I try and upgrade from the
mixture to both at ...-7, there is an error. 

Surely whether or not the dependencies are correct should only depend on what
I'm upgrading to, not on what I'm upgrading from?

Even if there is a packaging problem, the rpm behaviour seems counterintuitive
to me.
Comment 4 Owen Taylor 2003-06-10 18:17:49 EDT
* Tue Jun  3 2003 Jeff Johnson <jbj@redhat.com>
- add explicit epoch's where needed.
                                                                                

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