FC6 updates broken deps?

Thomas M Steenholdt tmus at tmus.dk
Thu Feb 22 09:25:55 UTC 2007


Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 February 2007 15:59, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> Does that depcheck also cover multi-lib? Because except for the
>> first one, I still see these:
>>
>> source rpm: python-virtinst-0.98.0-1.fc6.src.rpm
>> package: python-virtinst - 0.98.0-1.fc6.noarch from
>> fedora-core-updates-6-ppc unresolved deps:
>>      libvirt-python >= 0:0.1.4-4
>>
>> source rpm: bind-9.3.4-2.fc6.src.rpm
>> package: bind-devel - 31:9.3.4-2.fc6.i386 from fedora-core-updates-6-x86_64
>>   unresolved deps:
>>      libdns.so.22
>>      libbind9.so.0
>>      libisccc.so.0
>>      liblwres.so.9
>>      libisccfg.so.1
>>      libisc.so.11
>>
>> source rpm: compiz-0.3.6-2.fc6.src.rpm
>> package: compiz-devel - 0.3.6-2.fc6.i386 from fedora-core-updates-6-x86_64
>>   unresolved deps:
>>      libdecoration.so.0
>>
>> source rpm: kdeedu-3.5.6-0.1.fc6.src.rpm
>> package: kdeedu - 3.5.6-0.1.fc6.i386 from fedora-core-updates-6-x86_64
>>   unresolved deps:
>>      libpython2.4.so.1.0
>>
>> source rpm: kdeutils-3.5.6-0.1.fc6.src.rpm
>> package: kdeutils-devel - 6:3.5.6-0.1.fc6.i386 from
>> fedora-core-updates-6-x86_64 unresolved deps:
>>      libkmilo.so.1
>>      libkregexpeditorcommon.so.1
>>      libksimcore.so.1
>>      libkhexeditcommon.so.0
>>      libkcmlaptop.so.0
>>
>> source rpm: poppler-0.5.4-5.fc6.src.rpm
>> package: poppler-devel - 0.5.4-5.fc6.i386 from fedora-core-updates-6-x86_64
>>   unresolved deps:
>>      libpoppler-qt.so.1
> 
> Hrm, I'm not entirely sure, I'll have to defer to Luke Macken on that one.
> 
> I'm surprised that these haven't been reported before, people are generally 
> really quick to notice broken deps in the updates repos.
> 
> 

Fact of the matter is, that even though people should report such 
iregularities, it would be a lot less work for everybody, if yum would 
update the largest portion of updates that do not have any dependency 
problems. I know we've been over this like a thousand times, but I still 
see no valid reason not to make yum do this!

That would cause the 1 or 2 or 3 packages with probles to be held back, 
not the rest.

/Thomas

/Thomas




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list