Re: 0.99 vs redhat

Rob -

        I've just tested the compare you indicated, and I'm getting a
different result.  The compare is issuing: 
        rpm.labelCompare( ('', '3.0.18', '1.6.x'), ('', '3.0.18', '8'))
which should result in a -1, and which should then exit the routine and
go on to the next RPM.  When I manually issue this compare, I do indeed
get a -1:

>>> rpm.labelCompare( ('', '3.0.18', '1.6.x'), ('', '3.0.18', '8'))
-1

What version of the rpm-python package are you using?

On Fri, 08 Mar 2002, Rob Hagopian wrote:

> Yes, that was from the 6.2 tree (hence the question about rpm v3 perhaps
> being different)...
> 
> Server is RH 7.2, running current 0.99, clients are 6.2, 7.0, 7.1, and
> 7.2...
> 								-Rob
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Berninger [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 9:24 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [Current-server] 0.99 vs redhat
> > 
> > 
> > Rob -
> > 
> >         I'm trying to confirm this is a bug in the rpm.labelCompare()
> > function / code, but in my 7.2 tree I see only php 4.x packages.  What
> > release level are you attempting to server with Current?  Also, what
> > release level is your Current server (Red Hat version, not Current
> > version)?
> > 
> > On Thu, 07 Mar 2002, Rob Hagopian wrote:
> > 
> > > inlined too...
> > > 
> > > >         Eww.  This is not good - the code used to compare 
> > the package
> > > > ages is take directly from the Python RPM bindings - we 
> > actually make a
> > > > call to rpm.labelCompare() which is implemented inside 
> > the rpm-python
> > > > shared library.  I'll check Red Hat's bugzilla and if 
> > encessary submit a
> > > > bug about this.  I don't think we can do much, since we 
> > don't want to be
> > > > in the business of comparing RPM ages...  that gets ugly 
> > real quick.
> > > 
> > > Of course not... strangely enough it did correctly figure 
> > out the other
> > > associated php packages (kicking out -1.6.x in favor of 
> > -8)... could this be
> > > related to the fact that these are redhat 6.2 packages (rpm v3)?
> > > 
> > > >         This is definitely somewhere in the Current code 
> > - I'll try to
> > > > take a look at it tonight / tomorrow / this weekend.  I'm 
> > not /too/
> > > > surprised at this, but having it warn me about symlink issues on
> > > > different archs doesn't really seem quite right.  :)
> > > 
> > > And I wasn't too concerned about it (I've gotten real used 
> > to spurious
> > > warnings with gcc :-) ), but I did clean up the tree rather 
> > than gamble, so
> > > I can't tell you if it actually did the-right-thing(tm)...
> > > 
> > > >         Except for the PHP thing above, you really shouldn't 
> > > > have to do that anymore - or, at least, we'd hoped so...
> > > 
> > > As long as v1.0 is perfect ;-)
> > > 								-Rob
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Current-server mailing list
> > > [email protected]
> > > http://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/current-server
> > 
> > -- 
> > Thank you,
> > John Berninger
> > 
> > Systems Administrator		[email protected]
> > Department of Mathematics	Box 8205, Harrelson Hall
> > NC State University		Raleigh, NC 27695
> > Phone:  (919)515-6315		Fax:	(919)515-3798
> > 
> > GPG Key ID: A8C1D45C
> >         Fingerprint: B1BB 90CB 5314 3113 CF22  66AE 822D 42A8 
> > A8C1 D45C
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > Current-server mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/current-server
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Current-server mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/current-server

-- 
Thank you,
John Berninger

Systems Administrator		[email protected]
Department of Mathematics	Box 8205, Harrelson Hall
NC State University		Raleigh, NC 27695
Phone:  (919)515-6315		Fax:	(919)515-3798

GPG Key ID: A8C1D45C
        Fingerprint: B1BB 90CB 5314 3113 CF22  66AE 822D 42A8 A8C1 D45C
--