Re: 0.99 vs redhat
John Berninger <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.up2date.current.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Rob -
Could you issue the following RPM query for each of the files
involved (i.e. php-3.0.18-8.i386.rpm vs php-3.0.18-1.6.x.i386.rpm):
rpm -qp $filename --queryformat "%{NAME} %{EPOCH} %{VERSION}
%{RELEASE}" and send us the output?
Also, you mentioned you're running on 7.2, but the
rpm-python-4.0.2-8 package is a 7.1 RPM; the version shipped with 7.2
was rpm-python-4.0.3-1.03. Do you have a spare machine you can do a new
install of 7.2 on available, then up2date it through RHN, then test a
fresh install of the current-0.99.0 RPM, to see what a sanitized install
does for you?
On Fri, 08 Mar 2002, Rob Hagopian wrote:
> rpm-python-4.0.2-8
>
> I am able to reproduce it:
> Make the package directory
> Move in the most recent (php-3.0.18-8) packages
> [cadmin create <- shouldn't be necessary, but I did do it]
> Move in the old (php-3.0.18-1.6.x) packages
> cadmin create
>
> Yields:
> Mar 03 10:25:22 Adding php-3.0.18-8.i386.rpm
> Mar 03 10:25:22 Adding php-imap-3.0.18-8.i386.rpm
> Mar 03 10:25:22 Adding php-ldap-3.0.18-8.i386.rpm
> Mar 03 10:25:22 Adding php-manual-3.0.18-8.i386.rpm
> Mar 03 10:25:23 Adding php-pgsql-3.0.18-8.i386.rpm
> Mar 03 10:25:23 Adding php-3.0.18-1.6.x.i386.rpm
> Mar 03 10:25:23 type(hit) = <type 'string'>
> Mar 03 10:25:23 hit = php:3.0.18:8:
> Mar 03 10:25:23 Comparing packages: php-3.0.18-1.6.x and php-3.0.18-8
> Mar 03 10:25:23 Removing php-3.0.18-8.i386.rpm
> Mar 03 10:25:23 Older package deleted from db.
> Mar 03 10:25:23 Adding php-imap-3.0.18-1.6.x.i386.rpm
> Mar 03 10:25:23 type(hit) = <type 'string'>
> Mar 03 10:25:23 hit = php-imap:3.0.18:8:
> Mar 03 10:25:23 Comparing packages: php-imap-3.0.18-1.6.x and
> php-imap-3.0.18-8
> Mar 03 10:25:23 Removing php-imap-3.0.18-8.i386.rpm
> Mar 03 10:25:23 Older package deleted from db.
> Mar 03 10:25:23 Adding php-ldap-3.0.18-1.6.x.i386.rpm
> Mar 03 10:25:23 type(hit) = <type 'string'>
> Mar 03 10:25:23 hit = php-ldap:3.0.18:8:
> Mar 03 10:25:23 Comparing packages: php-ldap-3.0.18-1.6.x and
> php-ldap-3.0.18-8
> Mar 03 10:25:23 Removing php-ldap-3.0.18-8.i386.rpm
> Mar 03 10:25:23 Older package deleted from db.
> Mar 03 10:25:23 Adding php-manual-3.0.18-1.6.x.i386.rpm
> Mar 03 10:25:23 type(hit) = <type 'string'>
> Mar 03 10:25:23 hit = php-manual:3.0.18:8:
> Mar 03 10:25:23 Comparing packages: php-manual-3.0.18-1.6.x and
> php-manual-3.0.18-8
> Mar 03 10:25:23 Removing php-manual-3.0.18-8.i386.rpm
> Mar 03 10:25:23 Older package deleted from db.
> Mar 03 10:25:24 Adding php-pgsql-3.0.18-1.6.x.i386.rpm
> Mar 03 10:25:24 type(hit) = <type 'string'>
> Mar 03 10:25:24 hit = php-pgsql:3.0.18:8:
> Mar 03 10:25:24 Comparing packages: php-pgsql-3.0.18-1.6.x and
> php-pgsql-3.0.18-8
> Mar 03 10:25:24 Removing php-pgsql-3.0.18-8.i386.rpm
> Mar 03 10:25:24 Older package deleted from db.
>
>
> This does NOT happen if you add in the old (-1.6.x) packages to the
> directory first (or both at the same time using 'mv php-* i386/.'),
> suggesting that the label comparison isn't really working and that the
> directory listings are really providing the ordering?
> -Rob
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Berninger [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 10:07 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: Rob Hagopian
> > Subject: Re: [Current-server] 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
> > --
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--