Yum dependencies [still]

[Jeff Vian]

On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 02:33 -0500, M. Lewis wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 02:12 -0500, M. Lewis wrote:
> >>Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>>On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 12:06 +1100, Steffen Kluge wrote:
> >>>>On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 22:44 -0500, M. Lewis wrote:
> >>>>>Error: Missing Dependency: nvidia-glx = 0:1.0.7676 is needed by package 
> >>>>>kernel-module-nvidia-2.6.13-1.1532_FC4
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The root cause of this issue is that kernel and kernel module packages
> >>>>can exist in multiple versions on the same system, since they live in
> >>>>versioned directories and have no conflicting files. Other packages
> >>>>(like nvidia-glx) cannot have multiple versions installed at the same
> >>>>time. If you want to use the latest kernel with NVidia's proprietary
> >>>>driver you have to wave your old NVidia kernel modules good-bye. That
> >>>>means no proprietary NVidia driver support when you boot older kernels.
> >>>>
> >>>>Nobody's fault, really. 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I disagree - It's basically livna's fault. They ought to rebuild
> >>>kernel-module-nvidia for all kernels currently being used.
> >>>
> >>>Otherwise, users will not be able to update.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The only way out would be convincing someone to
> >>>>build the NVidia modules against x number of older kernels, as well.
> >>>
> >>>Exactly.
> >>>
> >>>Ralf
> >>
> >>I really don't care whose fault it might be.
> > 
> > 
> > It actually is quite simple: Current livna's packaging/update strategy
> > puts the rpm dependencies into an inconsistent state, i.e. this is a
> > packaging bug.
> > 
> > 
> >> If you're going to provide 
> >>an update, then the update should be complete, with any dependencies 
> >>required.
> > 
> > Yes. Fact is, livna's strategies breaks this rule.
> > 
> > 
> >>I'm not glued to a given kernel. I could really care less what kernel I 
> >>run as long as it is stable.
> > 
> > 
> >>My issue is I have probably over 100 updates to other packages that will 
> >>no update due to these one or two stupid dependencies. It would seem 
> >>that the packagers of yum, uptodate, or whatever, would allow the other 
> >>packages whose dependencies *are* resolved to be updated.
> > 
> > Agreed, but again, the dependencies can not be resolved, because livna's
> > packaging strategy is broken. So all installers (yum etc.) can do is to
> > try to find a reasonable compromise that doesn't destroy your system,
> > i.e. not to update it. 
> > 
> > Ralf
> > 
> > 
> 
> But what I'm saying is all the other 100 or more packages *could* be 
> updated. The ones that do *not* have dependencies. Upgrade them and wait 
> until the others dependencies are resolved.
> 
That approach is certainly a yum issue, not an issue with the packager.
I think many of us would agree with that.