[lsb-discuss] Minor issue with details of latest packages

Craig Scott craig.scott at southerninnovation.com
Wed Apr 10 23:53:09 UTC 2013


I don't want to dwell on this, especially since it really isn't a
particularly important issue and people's time could probably be better
spent elsewhere, so feel free to ignore this from here on. What follows
is just for those who might be interested. ;)

I downloaded the latest LSB packages that Apper is picking up and had a
look at the changelog for each one. I looked for version numbers being
missing/present in ways which might be related to the bug links I sent
in my previous email. What I noticed is that while most of the changelog
entries didn't include a version at the end of the first line, the thing
that *is* common to just the two packages that give me the message in
Apper is that they both have a version number at the end of the line for
a description. For reference, both have the following:

- seems to work now; set version to highest of the pkgs +1 so 4.1.2

I suspect it is the "4.1.2" at the end of these lines which is
triggering the warning in Apper, but I don't have the means/knowledge to
recreate the RPM's with an edited changelog to test/confirm my theory.
If PackageKit's logic for detecting the version number at the end of a
line is a bit flakey in Fedora 16's PackageKit, this might explain it
(and Fedora 18's PackageKit has probably tightened up the logic, but
that won't help people who aren't able to update their OS yet).

-- 
Craig Scott | Senior Software Engineer
Southern Innovation | PO Box 307, Carlton South, VIC 3053
t +613 9387 0338 | f +613 9387 0339
e craig.scott at southerninnovation.com 
 
w www.southerninnovation.com 
 

Notice: The information in this email is confidential. If you are not
the intended recipient, you must not distribute, copy, disclose or use
the information or attached files in this email in any way. We do not
guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards
Legislation.

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013, at 09:30 AM, Mats Wichmann wrote:
> On 04/10/2013 05:25 PM, Craig Scott wrote:
> > Looks likely to be the same issue as identified by these bug reports:
> > 
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508503
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657323
> > 
> > Basically, a missing version number at the end of the appropriate line
> > of the changelog. It's a non-standardised thing that later versions of
> > Fedora probably address by an updated version of PackageKit. I'm on
> > Fedora 16 which perhaps doesn't have the fix that the PackageKit in
> > Fedora 18 now has? If that's the case, it should be easy for the LSB
> > package creator to check and if it is the cause, to fix/workaround as
> > well.
> 
> 
> well... we don't really make use of the changelogs in the specfile.  I
> guess there's some format info someone's assuming, that we don't use in
> those cases where there are updates.  I dont see "version number"
> information in any of our .spec (usually .spec.sed in version control)
> files based on a very cursory glance.
> 
> we count on the change history from bzr instead, for our own uses.
> 
> so maybe there's a procedure step that could be added, but I suspect
> most packages of ours are "broken" this way, even if that brokenness is
> non-standard stuff to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lsb-discuss mailing list
> lsb-discuss at lists.linux-foundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss


More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list