registry team mailing list archive

[Jeff Johnson <n3npq@xxxxxxx>]

This bug was orignally identified by Mancoosi WP5 last December.

The bug is that Conflicts: assertions are not correctly verified when
the Release field is missing.

The impact is small because most RPM based distros tend
not to use Conflicts: assertions. The fact that the issue has
NEVER been reported or noticed (the bug has existed since rpm-3.0.2)
also indicates that the problem has low impact.

Adding an explicit version (and removing the missing value) is
likely the easiest solution because the behavior for Conflicts:
comparison is correct for all versions of RPM.

There are multiple patches that fix the problem attached to the Mandriva
bug.

Since the root cause is behavior of a Conflicts: assertion with a missing value,
the returned boolean value is arbitrarily/conventionally defined.

The patch from @rpm5.org if/when the necessary QA to identify affected packages
across multiple distros can be done. I personally think the problem is minor
(because there is a workaround by adding an explicit release to the comparison)
and becuase its more important to be bug-compatible with existing behavor
than to be logically correct. Behavior with missing values for any assertion checker
is always conventionally defined.

** Changed in: rpm
   Importance: Medium => Low

** Changed in: rpm
       Status: Confirmed => Triaged

-- 
comparisons without release
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/633208
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Registry
Administrators, which is the registrant for CentOS.