RPM naming question.

[Todd Zullinger]

Aaron Konstam wrote:
>> $ fedora-rpmvercmp 0.6.5-7.fc7 0.6.5-7L.fc7
>> 0:0.6.5-7.fc7 is newer
> 
> This is what I get when I run the above command: 
> [root at localhost ~]# fedora-rpmvercmp 0.6.5-7.fc7 0.6.5-7L.fc7
> Epoch1 :
> 
> Why are my results different than yours?

Are you running this on FC6 or less?  Support for the form I used was
added more recently.

$ fedora-rpmvercmp --help

rpmdev-vercmp <epoch1> <ver1> <release1> <epoch2> <ver2> <release2>
rpmdev-vercmp <EVR1> <EVR2> # if rpmUtils.miscutils is available
rpmdev-vercmp # with no arguments, prompt

The rpmUtils.miscutils module is provided by yum, which is version
3.2.1 on my F7 box.

Try breaking the strings up manually (and adding an epoch of 0):

$ fedora-rpmvercmp 0 0.6.5 7.fc7 0 0.6.5 7L.fc7
0:0.6.5-7.fc7 is newer

Or, you can enter the version to compare interactively, again using 0
for the epoch.

-- 
Todd        OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tact is just a mutual agreement to be full of shit.
    -- Spider Robinson

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20070712/ba93bf2c/attachment-0001.sig>