Re: rpm did not remove previous version

2015-09-11 Thread Doug Ledford
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

Re: rpm did not remove previous version

2015-09-11 Thread Matt Hall
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

Re: rpm did not remove previous version

2015-09-11 Thread Tim Mooney
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

Re: rpm did not remove previous version

2015-09-10 Thread Jeffrey Johnson
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

rpm did not remove previous version

2015-09-10 Thread Matt Hall
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: