3:27 p.m.
I'm testing apache 2.1.6-beta. I've created and updated the rpms for
it. When I use yum to check for updates, it wants to update mod_ssl,
but it shouldn't (I don't think). Here is a trace:
[bpm]$ sudo yum list avail httpd mod_ssl
Setting up repositories
livna 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00
macromedia 100% |=========================| 903 B 00:00
updates-testing 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00
extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
updates-released 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00
base 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
Reading repository metadata in from local files
primary.xml.gz 100% |=========================| 104 kB 00:00
updates-re: ################################################## 294/294
Added 0 new packages, deleted 4 old in 0.80 seconds
Installed Packages
httpd.i386 2.1.6-1 installed
mod_ssl.i386 2.1.6-1 installed
Available Packages
httpd.i386 2.0.54-10 base
mod_ssl.i386 1:2.0.54-10 base
[bpm]$ sudo yum check-update
Setting up repositories
livna 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00
macromedia 100% |=========================| 903 B 00:00
updates-testing 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00
extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
updates-released 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00
base 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
Reading repository metadata in from local files
primary.xml.gz 100% |=========================| 31 kB 00:00
updates-te: ################################################## 89/89
Added 3 new packages, deleted 0 old in 0.32 seconds
mod_ssl.i386 1:2.0.54-10 base
Ok, what does yum check? It is comparing that mod_ssl.1:2.0.54-10 is
greater than mod_ssl.2.1.6-1 ?
Is this a bug? a feature?
Thanks.
--
Brian Millett - [ Delenn and Sinclair, "The Gathering"]
"Do you not have files on the Vorlons?"
'Absolutely. Very large files. But nothing is in them, of course.'
3:56 p.m.
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 15:27 -0500, Brian Millett wrote:
Ok, what does yum check? It is comparing that mod_ssl.1:2.0.54-10 is
greater than mod_ssl.2.1.6-1 ?
Is this a bug? a feature?
mod_ssl 2.0.54-10 has an epoch of 1, hence the 1:. It is entirely
possible that mod_ssl 2.1.6-1 has no explicit epoch, and thus is 0:.
The fun w/ epochs is that epoch always wins version checking. 1:2.4 is
always going to be higher than even say 0:9.3. This is why yum things
that mod_ssl needs to be upgraded. Check your newer mod_ssl and see if
it has an epoch set.
--
Jesse Keating RHCE (http://geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team (http://www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key
(http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
Was I helpful? Let others know:
http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
3:58 p.m.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 15:27 -0500, Brian Millett wrote:
>Ok, what does yum check? It is comparing that mod_ssl.1:2.0.54-10 is
>greater than mod_ssl.2.1.6-1 ?
>
>Is this a bug? a feature?
mod_ssl 2.0.54-10 has an epoch of 1, hence the 1:. It is entirely
possible that mod_ssl 2.1.6-1 has no explicit epoch, and thus is 0:.
The fun w/ epochs is that epoch always wins version checking. 1:2.4 is
always going to be higher than even say 0:9.3. This is why yum things
that mod_ssl needs to be upgraded. Check your newer mod_ssl and see if
it has an epoch set.
Cool. Thanks! It is a feature. I need to go fix the spec to have an
epoch then. Is there a place to see what conventions fedora needs for
specs to build correct rpms?
--
Brian Millett - [ Garibaldi, "TKO"]
"You know, you're demented."
3:59 p.m.
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 15:27 -0500, Brian Millett wrote:
I'm testing apache 2.1.6-beta. I've created and updated the
rpms for
it. When I use yum to check for updates, it wants to update mod_ssl,
but it shouldn't (I don't think). Here is a trace:
[bpm]$ sudo yum list avail httpd mod_ssl
Setting up repositories
livna 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00
macromedia 100% |=========================| 903 B 00:00
updates-testing 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00
extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
updates-released 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00
base 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
Reading repository metadata in from local files
primary.xml.gz 100% |=========================| 104 kB 00:00
updates-re: ################################################## 294/294
Added 0 new packages, deleted 4 old in 0.80 seconds
Installed Packages
httpd.i386 2.1.6-1 installed
mod_ssl.i386 2.1.6-1 installed
Available Packages
httpd.i386 2.0.54-10 base
mod_ssl.i386 1:2.0.54-10 base
[bpm]$ sudo yum check-update
Setting up repositories
livna 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00
macromedia 100% |=========================| 903 B 00:00
updates-testing 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00
extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
updates-released 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00
base 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
Reading repository metadata in from local files
primary.xml.gz 100% |=========================| 31 kB 00:00
updates-te: ################################################## 89/89
Added 3 new packages, deleted 0 old in 0.32 seconds
mod_ssl.i386 1:2.0.54-10 base
Ok, what does yum check? It is comparing that mod_ssl.1:2.0.54-10 is
greater than mod_ssl.2.1.6-1 ?
Is this a bug? a feature?
jesse got it in one:
mod_ssl in your repo has an epoch of 1 - the one installed does not have
an epoch (hence no #: preceeding the ver-rel).
Think of no epoch as 0
so 1:2.0.54-10 > 0:2.1.6-1
-sv
4:13 p.m.
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 15:58 -0500, Brian Millett wrote:
Cool. Thanks! It is a feature. I need to go fix the spec to have
an
epoch then. Is there a place to see what conventions fedora needs for
specs to build correct rpms?
You could use the srpm for the current mod_ssl package and just update
it for your new source...
--
Jesse Keating RHCE (http://geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team (http://www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key
(http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
Was I helpful? Let others know:
http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
6875
days inactive
6875
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Brian Millett -
Jesse Keating -
seth vidal