pocallaghan at gmail.com
Wed Jul 21 15:14:13 UTC 2010
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 10:43 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 07/21/2010 10:31 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > I did a "yum upgrade" and was offered:
> > qbittorrent x86_64 1:2.2.8-2.fc13
> > even though I currently have:
> > $ rpm -q qbittorrent
> > qbittorrent-2.2.9-1.fc13.x86_64
> > (Note the version numbers)
> > I said 'N' because it seems at least counter-intuitive. Is there any way
> > to check that the proposed upgrade really supersedes the installed
> > version, or should I complain to the qbt maintainer?
> > poc
> You see the 1: before the version number in the version you were
> offered? That means that an epoch bump occurred (this is used primarily
> to deal with when a package has changed version number schemes and the
> new version numbers are lower than the old ones)
> It is also done in very rare occasions to force a downgrade from a
> known-bad version of a piece of software.
> - From the update description:
> * Tue Jul 20 2010 Leigh Scott <leigh123linux at googlemail.com> -
> 2.2.8-2 - add epoch and revert version to 2.2.8 as the newer versions
> violate the bundled libs guidelines
> The newer version 2.2.9 was in violation of Fedora policies
> (specifically, bundled libs can have unfixed security vulnerabilities),
> so the epoch was bumped to force a downgrade.
Thanks Stephen (and Mamoru). I did notice the epoch number but "rpm -qi"
on the current version (2.2.9) doesn't show the epoch so I wasn't sure.
More information about the users