{logwatch|tzdata}.fc4 newer than fc5 version
Paul Howarth
paul at city-fan.org
Mon Apr 3 14:14:19 UTC 2006
mostafa.afgani at world.iu-bremen.de wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Last friday I upgraded a fully updates FC4 box to FC5. The upgrade was
> flawless. While looking for leftover FC4 packages, I came across:
>
> [afgani at cpc155 ~]$ rpm -qa --qf %-30{NAME}' '%{DISTRIBUTION}'\n' | grep
> "(FC-4)"$
> logwatch Red Hat (FC-4)
> tzdata Red Hat (FC-4)
>
> and a few others (kernel_FC4, hal.fc4, gnome-kerberos,
> system-config-mouse) which were easily removed.
>
> Comparing version numbers:
>
> [afgani at cpc155 ~]$ sudo yum list tzdata logwatch
> Loading "installonlyn" plugin
> Setting up repositories
> core [1/3]
> core 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
> updates [2/3]
> updates 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00
> extras [3/3]
> extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00
> Reading repository metadata in from local files
> Installed Packages
> logwatch.noarch 7.2.1-1.fc4 installed
> tzdata.noarch 2006b-2.fc4 installed
> Available Packages
> logwatch.noarch 7.1-8 core
> tzdata.noarch 2006b-1 core
>
> it seems that fc4 contains updated packages while fc5 does not. These
> updates were released on March 22nd but the fc5 packages are dated March
> 6th. I searched the updates and testing branches of fc5 but it looks like
> updates to those packages are not even in testing yet. I then looked
> through the development branch and saw a 7.3 version of logwatch; but the
> version of tzdata was still 2006b-1 (i.e. even older than the fc4 update)
>
> So, what shall do at this point? Should I just leave the newer versions?
> Or, should I grab the fc5 rpms and do "rpm --oldpackage --replacefiles" ?
I'd be inclined to leave them as-is but bugzilla them. The FC5 versions
*should* always appear to be "newer" than the FC4 versions. There should
be updates for FC5 to bring them to at least the same level as FC4.
Paul.
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list