On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 19:29:51 +0930, Tim via users wrote:
Patrick Dupre wrote:
>> This has been solved by
>>
>> rpm -e perl-PDL-LAPACK-0.12-1-1.fc30.x86_64
Michael Schwendt:
> The good old "rpm -e perl-PDL-LAPACK" would have been enough for the
> most common use case.
Don't you have to do up to the first dot?
i.e. rpm -q perl-PDL-LAPACK-0
No. The simplified package naming scheme here is N-V-R.A as in
"Name-Version-Release.Arch", and specifying the name would be enough when
only a single package of that name is installed. Even if the name included
one or more characters like '-', '_' or '.'. In dependencies
related
output you will also see N:E-V-R.Arch if the Epoch tag is set for a
package, but when using rpm/dnf, specifying the Epoch is only needed in
corner-cases.
Putting a numerical "Version" and '.' characters into the package name
can
break quite some tools and scripts that strictly expect a simple N-V-R scheme.