Mauriat M wrote:
On 7/11/07, Don Russell <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I received this update message on the fedora-package-announce list this
morning:
Fedora 7 Update: vim-7.1.12-1.fc7
I used rpm -q vim to see which version I already have and was very
surprised at the result:
package vim is not installed
Say what? I use vim all the time.
"yum whatprovides vim" told me vim is provided by vim-enhanced
Q: Why does this cause me grief?
A: I have automated mail handling that determines if these update
notices apply to my system, discarding those that do not (because I
already have the specified version installed, or the packageis not
installed at all)
So, when I see there's an update to "vim", my code does an rpm -q vim to
see if vim is installed, and since that's not the correct name of the
package, I get a false negative.
What would it take to have this package actually be called vim-enhanced
in the update notice?
Or, perhaps to be more robust, if I get a "package not installed", I
should dig deeper before deciding it doesn't aply and do a"what
provides..." then check THAT result.
I am going to take a guess that your "automated" mail handling only
parses the subject line of the mail? ... I'm sure you realize the
package name in the email subject line represents the SRC package, not
necessarily every single binary RPM package.
I parse the body of the message where it says
Name : ...
Product: ...
Version: ...
Release: ...
I would say the problem lies in your script, not the actual email.
Here is 1 possible idea: you should instead try looking at the body of
the email and use some sort of regex to parse out the individual
binary packages (i.e. the list at the end of the email). Once you
filter out for your arch, then run whatever logic you have in place to
see if it applies to you.
That's an idea... in the mean time, I've changed my "rpm -q <name>" to
"rpm -q --whatprovides <name>", and it's working better.
But, thanks for the input... I'll look into parsing the list of items at
the end of the e-mail. Good idea. :-)
Note, I dropped the idea of using yum whatprovides because rpm -q
--whatprovides is simpler and seems to do what I wanted.
I like your idea.. it will be more robust. :-)
