Re: Yum oddness

2010-07-21 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 21:32 +0100, Sam Sharpe wrote: [...] > The last paragraph of the section of `man rpm` dealing with > --queryformat says the following: > >For example, to print only the names of the packages queried, you could >use %{NAME} as the format string. To print the p

Re: Yum oddness

2010-07-21 Thread Sam Sharpe
On 21 July 2010 21:13, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 03:49 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: >> > No epoch is equivalent to epoch zero. That's why it wasn't >> displayed. >> >> To be clear: >> By default "$ rpm -q" ($ rpm -qi) does not show epoch information even >> if the rpm actua

Re: Yum oddness

2010-07-21 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 03:49 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > > No epoch is equivalent to epoch zero. That's why it wasn't > displayed. > > To be clear: > By default "$ rpm -q" ($ rpm -qi) does not show epoch information even > if the rpm actually has epoch. That might be worth revising. The rpm quer

Re: Yum oddness

2010-07-21 Thread Mamoru Tasaka
Stephen Gallagher wrote, at 07/22/2010 03:21 AM +9:00: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 07/21/2010 11:14 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: >> >> Thanks Stephen (and Mamoru). I did notice the epoch number but "rpm -qi" >> on the current version (2.2.9) doesn't show the epoch so

Re: Yum oddness

2010-07-21 Thread Stephen Gallagher
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/21/2010 11:14 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > Thanks Stephen (and Mamoru). I did notice the epoch number but "rpm -qi" > on the current version (2.2.9) doesn't show the epoch so I wasn't sure. > > poc > No epoch is equivalent to epoch zero

Re: Yum oddness

2010-07-21 Thread JD
On 07/21/2010 07:31 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > I did a "yum upgrade" and was offered: > > qbittorrent x86_64 1:2.2.8-2.fc13 > > even though I currently have: > > $ rpm -q qbittorrent > qbittorrent-2.2.9-1.fc13.x86_64 > > (Note the version numbers)

Re: Yum oddness

2010-07-21 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 10:43 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 07/21/2010 10:31 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > I did a "yum upgrade" and was offered: > > > > qbittorrent x86_64 > > 1:2.2.8-2.fc1

Re: Yum oddness

2010-07-21 Thread Mamoru Tasaka
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote, at 07/21/2010 11:31 PM +9:00: > I did a "yum upgrade" and was offered: > > qbittorrent x86_64 1:2.2.8-2.fc13 > > even though I currently have: > > $ rpm -q qbittorrent > qbittorrent-2.2.9-1.fc13.x86_64 > > (Note the version numb

Re: Yum oddness

2010-07-21 Thread Stephen Gallagher
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/21/2010 10:31 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > I did a "yum upgrade" and was offered: > > qbittorrent x86_64 1:2.2.8-2.fc13 > > even though I currently have: > > $ rpm -q qbittorrent > qbittorrent-2.

Yum oddness

2010-07-21 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan
I did a "yum upgrade" and was offered: qbittorrent x86_64 1:2.2.8-2.fc13 even though I currently have: $ rpm -q qbittorrent qbittorrent-2.2.9-1.fc13.x86_64 (Note the version numbers) I said 'N' because it seems at least counter-intuitive. Is there an