On Tue, 2021-02-23 at 11:29 +0100, Michal Suchánek wrote:
Also from your analysis in your other mail it is clear
that the rpm
package is not months old but much older. According to the report the
user did not upgrade for a few months but ended up with rpm 4.11 which
is very old - 4.12 was introduced in 2014.
Oh - that one I missed; so adding to my previous mail - compared to
4.11, we did not only change payload compression.
we actually use boolean dependencies in rpm.spec - which are supported
from rpm 4.13 onwards (rpm 4.13 is from 2017 IIRC)
So this is clearly some problem with the system -
using package lock,
having old software installed that prevents the rpm upgrade, or
whatever. If you break it you get to keep the pieces. Can't do much