quot;
> <rpm-users@rpm5.org <mailto:rpm-users@rpm5.org>>
> Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 4:11 PM
> To: "rpm-users@rpm5.org <mailto:rpm-users@rpm5.org>" <rpm-users@rpm5.org
> <mailto:rpm-users@rpm5.org>>
> Subject: Re: rpm did not remove p
On 9/11/15, 10:01 AM, "Doug Ledford" wrote:
>On 09/11/2015 12:48 PM, Matt Hall wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that did not work and left the first rpm in place. I think we did
>> something bad with the EVR and rpm was unable to find / remove the old
>> version.
>>
>> For instance, on
In regard to: Re: rpm did not remove previous version, Matt Hall said (at...:
It's probably the - in the upstream version. I think that's a reserved
character and it changes the n-v-r matching such that the names are no
longer the same.
I think you are correct. I found the yum-util Œpackage
Did you type "rpm -Uvh ..."
or "rpm -ivh ..."?
In almost all circumstances (kernels being the major exception), "rpm -Uvh ...
" should be used.
hth
73 de Jeff
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 10, 2015, at 5:35 PM, Matt Hall wrote:
>
>
> We had a bit of a mis-naming snafu that
We had a bit of a mis-naming snafu that we’re trying to sort out how to fix.
First rpm was
Name: rpmone
Version: 1.1.branchname-352
Release: 1
We later fixed the versioning, because it caused issues / was not upgrading
when a new version was installed.
Second rpm was
Name: rpmone
Version: