Re: Use with Ximian RPMs?

On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 17:43, Peter Bowen wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-07-16 at 07:38, John HEARNS wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 18:23, Paul Nasrat wrote:
> > > > Testing package set / solving RPM inter-dependencies...
> > > > There was a package dependency problem.  The message was:
> > > > 
> > > > Unresolvable chain of dependencies:
> > > > evolution  1.0.8.99-snap.ximian.20020709 requires libpisock.so.4
> > > > gnome-pilot  0.1.65-1.ximian.1           requires libpisock.so.4
> > > 
> 
> Rebuilding the database won't help.  You have hit a bug in RPM.  When
> presented with two versions to compare, one starting with a letter, the
> other with a number, rpm gets confused and always returns -1, which
> up2date takes as 'upgrade this package'.  So you get into a situation
> where up2date always goes for the _other_ package if two are available
> to it, e.g. pilot-link-0.9.5-8 and pilot-link-0.9.5-ximian.2.
> 

Thankyou for your help.
Things become much clearer.

Incidentally, I have come across a similar problem recently.
No names, no pack drill (this is a public list)
A package was upgraded - RPM renamed  from package-1.1.rpm to
package-latest.rpm
Current barfs on this also when trying to create a channel
(it tries to find package-1.2.hdr for instance)
No fault at all in current.

I'm no RPM expert at all, but I idly wonder if there is a better
way than getting the version number from the file name.
Guess this would involve some fundamental changes, so I'll
keep quiet.