Yum has screwed up my system :-(

[Robin Laing]

Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 08:51:25AM -0600, Robin Laing wrote:
> 
>>Axel Thimm wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 09:22:46AM -0600, Robin Laing wrote:
>>>
>>>>I was running into problems with yum and up2date on two
>>>>computers and have traced all problems to atrpms repository.
>>>>For some reasons their files don't want to work with other
>>>>repositories as nice as others.
> 
> 
>>>>My biggest problem has been with their PHP* packages and I have
>>>>submitted a bug report which has been closed but still won't
>>>>work as expected.
> 
> 
>>>http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=143
>>>
>>>What does not work as expected? If you don't report it it won't get
>>>fixed.
> 
> 
>>The latest PHP updates from fedora-updates won't install due to the
>>libxsltbreakpoint dependency which is the bug that I issued.
> 
> 
> And which has been fixed 6 weeks ago, see the bugzilla entry
> above. You probably did not upgrade to these packages, which is why
> you have troubles. If you need a fix, then you must also install it :)
> 
When I returned from holidays there was a php* update listed through 
yum from fedora-updates.  None from atrpms.  I tried to install this 
update and still received the libxsltbreakpoint dependency issue.  I 
have been watching for an update from atrpms but none came.

 From bug tracking.
"There is no way to reintroduce libxsltbreakpoint.so.1 with newer 
libxslt, so there was only one the php-rebuilding option left. Done so.

Thanks for the report!"

I never received any update for a new php from atrpms after this message.

> 
>>Newer packages, including those from fedora-updates were being
>>stopped due to dependency problems for many packages, I don't have
>>the list anymore.
> 
> 
> Well, w/o a list or any kind of detailed report, there can only be
> guesswork applied. Since there are quite a lot of ATrpms users
> combining the repo not only with fedora-updates (which goes unsaid),
> but also freshrpms, newrpms etc., chances are that your issues are
> quite specific to your case.
> 
> It could be that there are still bugs somewhere in ATrpms (there is no
> place w/o bugs ;), but w/o any detailed report, no good diagnosis is
> possible, and thus also no suggested solution.
> 
> If you want to see these resolved, please file bugs in
> bugzilla.atrpms.net, or bug the atrpms lists (or any repo specific
> lists, in case you find bugs in other components). Note that
> bugzilla.atrpms.net is a shared bugzilla of a dozen or so repos, not
> only for ATrpms.
> 

I do agree.  As I stated, it was my problem and I normally submit bug 
reports as they are important.  My problem was I had only a short time 
and this the updates were taking allot longer than I had.  It was very 
frustrating that in all cases it the problems pointed to an rpm from 
atrpms and dependency issues.

> 
>>When I get time and I can connect to bugzilla I will submit a bug on 
>>the whole mess.
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
I just submitted all I can remember.  It isn't much as I don't have 
any detailed notes.  I was working with multiple terminal windows and 
doing everything that way.  Some scribbles on paper.

> 
>>Simply, it points to how packages work with other repositories.  I
>>will have to figure out how to word the issue as it isn't just one
>>package application but a system.
> 
> 
> You don't have to make a thorough analysis, you post your findings,
> and teh atrpms lists & bugzilla will help you through.
> 
> 
>>As a suggestion to different repository operators is to run a few 
>>machines that do updates from different repositories to check for 
>>these various problems and to ensure ease of use for all users.  The 
>>nodeps option should not be needed.
> 
> 
> The above is true for ATrpms packages, at least for FCx. The Red Hat
> series have become semi-orphaned (only live in chroots, which makes
> testing of most rpms feasable, but kernels & kernel modules).

It is the cross repository issues that are the headache.  If a lib 
from livna is updated it shouldn't cause a whole set of dependency 
problems to update the lib, unless it is a major update.  Of course 
with a major update, all the applications using that lib would be 
updated as well.

 From a home user aspect, these headaches could turn people away from 
Linux.  It is bad enough that people don't like the idea of having to 
add multi-media libs to get DVD's and mp3 to work.  That flashing red 
update icon and getting a whole slew of dependency issues will turn 
people off.

I for one am not looking forward to moving to FC3 when it comes out. 
I have stayed away from FC2 as I have to have my home machine working 
or my wife will kill me.  She hates it when I say I have to do an 
security update as she is afraid that there are going to be problems.

I love computers. :)
-- 
Robin Laing