On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 10:06 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> We can't prevent fc16 packages from trumping over fc17 packages unless we
> move the disttag all the way to the first position in the Release tag.
> You're supposed to increment "N" in your above when you update to a new
> snapshot, so the
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 11:10:42AM +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 12:12 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 11:58 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > Well, in this case yes, but this problem could emerge again in a case
> > > where there's no version
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 12:12 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 11:58 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > Well, in this case yes, but this problem could emerge again in a case
> > where there's no version bump that 'should have' been carried out. The
> > fundamental problem here
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 12:31:15PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 21:24 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:58:08 -0700, AW (Adam) wrote:
> >
> > > > 0.2.20110718525e3df.fc16
> > > > 0.2.2011072859fadcc.fc17
> > > >
> > > > Split up into the elements t
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 21:24 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:58:08 -0700, AW (Adam) wrote:
>
> > > 0.2.20110718525e3df.fc16
> > > 0.2.2011072859fadcc.fc17
> > >
> > > Split up into the elements that RPM compares, these are:
> > >
> > > 0, 2, 20110718525, e, 3, df, fc,
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:58:08 -0700, AW (Adam) wrote:
> > 0.2.20110718525e3df.fc16
> > 0.2.2011072859fadcc.fc17
> >
> > Split up into the elements that RPM compares, these are:
> >
> > 0, 2, 20110718525, e, 3, df, fc, 16
> > 0, 2, 2011072859, fadcc, fc, 17
> >
> > The thi
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 11:58 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Well, in this case yes, but this problem could emerge again in a case
> where there's no version bump that 'should have' been carried out. The
> fundamental problem here is that git commit IDs are a single hex string,
> but RPM version co
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 15:00 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 13:37 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > Below are two packages. The first one is installed, the second one is
> > built for Koji. Yum refuses to upgrade the installed package to the
> > second one, saying:
> >
>
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 07:49:53 -0500, JMF (Justin) wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 13:37 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > Below are two packages. The first one is installed, the second one is
> > built for Koji. Yum refuses to upgrade the installed package to the
> > second one, saying:
> >
>
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 13:37 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Below are two packages. The first one is installed, the second one is
> built for Koji. Yum refuses to upgrade the installed package to the
> second one, saying:
>
> Examining qemu-0.15.0-0.2.2011072859fadcc.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
> 2:qem
On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 13:37 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Below are two packages. The first one is installed, the second one is
> built for Koji. Yum refuses to upgrade the installed package to the
> second one, saying:
>
> Examining qemu-0.15.0-0.2.2011072859fadcc.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
> 2:qem
Below are two packages. The first one is installed, the second one is
built for Koji. Yum refuses to upgrade the installed package to the
second one, saying:
Examining qemu-0.15.0-0.2.2011072859fadcc.fc17.x86_64.rpm:
2:qemu-0.15.0-0.2.2011072859fadcc.fc17.x86_64
qemu-0.15.0-0.2.2011072859fadcc.
12 matches
Mail list logo
