CentOS - May 2018 - rpm spec version : higher version is seen as older

Hi! I have a very puzzling problem :
one rpm with version 1.2.5 and one with 1.3.1 (spec file does not have
Epoch defined)

trying to install i get this :
[root at storage02 aliprod]# rpm -Uvh
xrootd-alicetokenacc-1.3.1-1.el6.x86_64.rpm
Preparing...                ###########################################
[100%]
        package xrootd-alicetokenacc-1:1.2.5-1.el6.x86_64 (which is
newer than xrootd-alicetokenacc-1.3.1-1.el6.x86_64) is already installed

the rpm information :
rpm -qi xrootd-alicetokenacc
Name        : xrootd-alicetokenacc         Relocations: (not relocatable)
Version     : 1.2.5                             Vendor: (none)
Release     : 1.el6                         Build Date: Wed 17 Jun 2015
02:25:13 AM EEST
Install Date: Mon 22 Jun 2015 01:12:34 PM EEST      Build Host:
issaf.spacescience.ro
Group       : System Environment/Daemons    Source RPM:
xrootd-alicetokenacc-1.2.5-1.el6.src.rpm
Size        : 1125309                          License: none
Signature   : (none)
Summary     : Alice Token Authorization Acc plugin
Description :
An authorization plugin for xrootd using the Alice Token authorization
envelope.

and
rpm -qip xrootd-alicetokenacc-1.3.1-1.el6.x86_64.rpm
Name        : xrootd-alicetokenacc         Relocations: (not relocatable)
Version     : 1.3.1                             Vendor: (none)
Release     : 1.el6                         Build Date: Wed 23 May 2018
12:31:05 AM EEST
Install Date: (not installed)               Build Host: el6build
Group       : CERN IT-ST                    Source RPM:
xrootd-alicetokenacc-1.3.1-1.el6.src.rpm
Size        : 1373710                          License: none
Signature   : (none)
Summary     : Alice Token Authorization Acc plugin
Description :
An authorization plugin for xrootd using the Alice Token authorization
envelope.

any idea why this could happen?
AFAIK the solution would be the introduction of "Epoch: 1" but i seen
that this is usually acceptable only as last resort..

So, any ideas about this problem?
Thank you!!
Adrian

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 08:07:52PM +0300, Adrian Sevcenco
wrote:
> Hi! I have a very puzzling problem :
> one rpm with version 1.2.5 and one with 1.3.1 (spec file does not have
> Epoch defined)
> 
> trying to install i get this :
> [root at storage02 aliprod]# rpm -Uvh
> xrootd-alicetokenacc-1.3.1-1.el6.x86_64.rpm
> Preparing...                ###########################################
> [100%]
>         package xrootd-alicetokenacc-1:1.2.5-1.el6.x86_64 (which is
> newer than xrootd-alicetokenacc-1.3.1-1.el6.x86_64) is already installed
Yeah, "has epoch" is always newer than "doesn't have
epoch". You can
see from the "1:" in 1:1.2.5 that that package *does* have Epoch
defined.
> any idea why this could happen?
> AFAIK the solution would be the introduction of "Epoch: 1" but i
seen
> that this is usually acceptable only as last resort..
Looks like you're *already* in that state. I guess you can think of
this as an example of why it's a last resort, because once done once,
you're stuck. But now, there you are.

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader

On 05/23/2018 10:05 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 08:07:52PM +0300, Adrian Sevcenco wrote:
>> Hi! I have a very puzzling problem :
>> one rpm with version 1.2.5 and one with 1.3.1 (spec file does not have
>> Epoch defined)
>>
>> trying to install i get this :
>> [root at storage02 aliprod]# rpm -Uvh
>> xrootd-alicetokenacc-1.3.1-1.el6.x86_64.rpm
>> Preparing...                ###########################################
>> [100%]
>>         package xrootd-alicetokenacc-1:1.2.5-1.el6.x86_64 (which is
>> newer than xrootd-alicetokenacc-1.3.1-1.el6.x86_64) is already
installed
> 
> Yeah, "has epoch" is always newer than "doesn't have
epoch". You can
> see from the "1:" in 1:1.2.5 that that package *does* have Epoch
> defined.
well, this is what is really puzzling : it it the same spec file without
any epoch defined.. difference being that first one was build in 2015 on
el6 and the last one was built now on up to date el6 ...
>> any idea why this could happen?
>> AFAIK the solution would be the introduction of "Epoch: 1"
but i seen
>> that this is usually acceptable only as last resort..
> 
> Looks like you're *already* in that state. I guess you can think of
> this as an example of why it's a last resort, because once done once,
> you're stuck. But now, there you are.
yeah, i will add the epoch to the spec file ... very puzzling why it is
there though..

Thanks!
Adrian