Yum update mplayer

[Paul Howarth]

Robin Laing wrote:
> Paul Howarth wrote:
> 
>> Bob Marcan wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Howarth wrote:
>>>
>>>> $ rpm -qlp xorg-x11-libs-6.8.1-12.FC3.21_1.rhfc3.at.i386.rpm | grep
>>>> libvia
>>>> warning: xorg-x11-libs-6.8.1-12.FC3.21_1.rhfc3.at.i386.rpm: V3 DSA
>>>> signature: NOKEY, key ID 66534c2b
>>>> /usr/X11R6/lib/libviaXvMC.so.1
>>>> /usr/X11R6/lib/libviaXvMC.so.1.0
>>>>
>>>> If you're not getting this package, perhaps you've configured yum 
>>>> not to
>>>> update your xorg packages from atrpms, or perhaps you've picked up a
>>>> later version from elsewhere?
>>>>
>>>> Paul.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [encijan ~]$ rpm -q xorg-x11-libs
>>> xorg-x11-libs-6.8.1-12.FC3.21
>>> from ftp://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/updates/3/
>>
>>
>>
>> xorg-x11-libs-6.8.1-12.FC3.21
>> should not be as recent as:
>> xorg-x11-libs-6.8.1-12.FC3.21_1.rhfc3.at
>>
>> so an atrpms user should be getting 
>> xorg-x11-libs-6.8.1-12.FC3.21_1.rhfc3.at as an upgrade, which contains 
>> the libviaXvMC.so.1 library that the OP (an atrpms user) was looking for.
>>
>>> The next thing will be a new kernel at atrpms?
>>> Mixing this repos are a mess.
>>
>>
>>
>> Where's the mixing? Everything the OP needed was either an FC3 package 
>> or available at atrpms.
>>
>> Paul.
>>
> 
> I have said it in the past.  I have had these little(?) issues with 
> atrpms.

I'm not an atrpms user myself. In fact I don't use any repos but [base], 
[updates-released] and my own personal repo. Not even fedora extras (at 
least not yet). So I've no particular axe to grind...

 > I don't doubt that Axel is doing what he does for a reason but
> for me, atrpms has been a headache.  Why does atrpms packages always 
> require only atrpms packages to work?

The problem above is that the Fedora xorg packages don't build the 
library needed; the atrpms version do include that library. Seems a 
perfectly reasonable thing to do.

> Why couldn't I upgrade an rpm 
> with a non atrpms without dependency problems?

If the updated package doesn't include the library, whose fault is that? 
Not atrpms I'd say.

 > Why should I have to
> force an update to a newer non-atrpms package?

I have little sympathy for people that use --force or --nodeps without 
knowing exactly what they are doing. This particular case is very 
simple. The person is trying to use mplayer from atrpms, which requires 
the atrpms xorg packages because the standard Fedora xorg packages do 
not include everything needed (recall there have also been complaints 
about xeyes etc. missing from the Fedora xorg packages). Where's the 
problem here? If a subsequent upgrade of xorg is forced, and the updated 
package doesn't include the "missing" library, the atrpms mplayer will 
break. That's the fault of the person doing the --force, not atrpms.

> Heck, it has been months since I used atrpms and I still run into 
> problems with some packages and updates.

If you've been using --force, I'm not terribly surprised to hear this.

Paul.