Bugzilla (bugzilla.redhat.com) will be under maintenance for infrastructure upgrades and will not be available on July 31st between 12:30 AM - 05:30 AM UTC. We appreciate your understanding and patience. You can follow status.redhat.com for details.
Bug 83099 - Dependency on version stops release-only upgrade
Summary: Dependency on version stops release-only upgrade
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Raw Hide
Classification: Retired
Component: gdk-pixbuf
Version: 1.0
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Owen Taylor
QA Contact: Brian Brock
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2003-01-30 08:05 UTC by Ralph Loader
Modified: 2007-04-18 16:50 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2003-06-10 22:17:49 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ralph Loader 2003-01-30 08:05:29 UTC
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
# 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

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 2003-01-31 04:53:42 UTC
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 05:06:45 UTC
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 05:46:12 UTC
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 22:17:49 UTC
* 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.