[Bug 538657] New: Some Fedora 12 packages have versions that do not supersede the versions of Fedora 11 packages,

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Some Fedora 12 packages have versions that do not supersede the versions of Fedora 11 packages,

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538657

Summary: Some Fedora 12 packages have versions that do not
                    supersede the versions of Fedora 11 packages,
           Product: Fedora
           Version: 12
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: medium
          Priority: low
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
    Classification: Fedora

Some Fedora 12 packages have versions that do not supersede the versions of
Fedora 11 packages, preventing a complete upgrade to FC12. A partial list is:

tigervnc-1.0.0-2.fc11.i586
gst-mixer-2.26.0-3.fc11.i586
libotf-0.9.9-3.fc11.i586
nautilus-cd-burner-libs-2.25.3-7.fc11.i586
lame-libs-3.98.2-3.fc11.i586
iptstate-2.2.2-3.fc11.i586
kmodtool-1-18.fc11.noarch
preupgrade-1.1.2-1.fc11.noarch
parrot-docs-1.6.0-2.fc11.noarch
mod_dnssd-0.6-2.fc11.i586
libnetfilter_conntrack-0.0.100-1.fc11.i586
a52dec-0.7.4-15.fc11.i586
faad2-libs-2.7-1.fc11.i586
libvolume_id-141-7.fc11.i586
twolame-libs-0.3.12-4.fc11.i586
parrot-1.6.0-2.fc11.i586
parrot-devel-1.6.0-2.fc11.i586
parrot-tools-1.6.0-2.fc11.i586
faac-1.28-1.fc11.1.i586
iw-0.9.17-3.fc11.i586
sos-1.8-17.fc11.noarch
gnome-mount-0.8-5.fc11.i586

For example, 'yum update iw' does nothing; 'yum install iw' results in 
an error message

Transaction Check Error:
  package iw-0.9.17-3.fc11.i586 (which is newer than iw-0.9.17-2.fc12.i686) is
already installed

Similar behavior for all other packages on the list.

[Bug 538657] Some Fedora 12 packages have versions that do not supersede the versions of Fedora 11 packages,

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538657

Rahul Sundaram  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
         Resolution|                            |NOTABUG

--- Comment #1 from Rahul Sundaram   2009-11-18 20:37:33 EDT ---

Package review component is for reviewing NEW packages not in the repository
yet. Please post to fedora-devel list instead.

[Bug 538657] Some Fedora 12 packages have versions that do not supersede the versions of Fedora 11 packages,

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538657

--- Comment #2 from [e-mail]  2009-11-19 09:49:35 EDT ---
   Package review component is for reviewing NEW packages not in the 
   repository yet. Please post to fedora-devel list instead.

OK, I had no idea where to put this report---it's a packaging system issue as
much as a specific package issue so I went by a name that seemed plausible, in
absence of better information on what the components actually cover.

Look, I was trying to do the right thing. Can't you help me  by suggesting a
Bugzilla component/category that this belongs in, instead of dismissing this to
some mailing list? I think it'd be better if this gets captured in the regular
workflow. You closed the issue with status NOTABUG which implies that it is
fixed but it is not, and if unsolved it could eventually affect RHEL customers
upgrading from previous versions.

If there isn't any existing category, it should be created, in my opinion---the
alternative being to report umpteen package versioning issues against the
individual packages in question.

[Bug 538657] Some Fedora 12 packages have versions that do not supersede the versions of Fedora 11 packages,

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538657

--- Comment #3 from Rahul Sundaram   2009-11-19 09:59:48 EDT ---
I suggested what I thought was the quickest path. If you want to do it
properly, individual bug reports against each of the components would be the
way to go. Catch all components are not useful since each package is maintained
by a different person.

[Bug 538657] Some Fedora 12 packages have versions that do not supersede the versions of Fedora 11 packages,

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538657

--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts   2009-11-19 21:55:43 EDT ---
There's a "distribution" component that is far, far more appropriate than
"Package Review".

[Bug 538657] Some Fedora 12 packages have versions that do not supersede the versions of Fedora 11 packages,

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538657

Przemek Klosowski  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
          Component|Package Review              |distribution

--- Comment #5 from Przemek Klosowski   2009-12-08 16:32:12 EDT ---
Changed to 'distribution' component per Jason Tibbitts' comment #4