atrpms kernel modules

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 19:07 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: 
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 03:35:28PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> > Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > >On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 14:41 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> > >>Neither yum nor rpm know which packages you want to get from which repo 
> > >>unless you explictly tell them. The big list of packages you get are 
> > >>packages (or their dependencies) that you already have on your system 
> > >>(from some repo other than ATrpms) that have "later" versions in ATrpms. 
> > >>Since you told yum that you wanted to update all of the packages on your 
> > >>system to the latest versions, and to get packages from ATrpms, it tried 
> > >>to do what it was told and you got the big list.
> > >
> > >	Yes, and agreed and understood.  But also one that lead smack into a
> > >critical dependency failure that killed the update cold.  A dependency
> > >failure that only occurs when ATrpms is included.
> > 
> > To be fair, this could happen when any two repos are used that have 
> > packages with the same names (or having the same "Provides" as far as 
> > RPM is concerned). It's not specific to ATrpms.

> To me it really looks like a yum bug. Especially when ocaml is
> verbosely set to be updated to some version and suddenly ocaml at the
> end is said to be not available.

	Interesting.  Yup...  Got it.  It's not with ocaml per se.  It's with a
package, labltk, that depends on the installed version of ocaml that is
flagged to be updated.

> So my recommendation (to Michael) is: (after making sure that your
> system is not having a brokeeeen rpm database) try using smart and see
> what this will suggest to do. It should at least offer a better result
> than bailing out.

	Nope.  Just check and rpm -V comes back clean for all the ATrpm
packages installed (and others I checked) beyond some device file
permissions and some permissions on asterisk-sounds.  Running
--rebuilddbm has no effect either.

> smart at ATrpms and the atrpms-package-config and
> medley-package-config contain livna smart channels, but also a bit
> more, so if you use that you will have to deactivate some repo to
> really test the only livna&atrpms activated setup. Or you can install
> smart from extras and add livna&atrpms channels to it.

	Yeah, well...

	Running smart seem to nail it.  Smart wanted to just remove a couple of
packages that were blowing the dependency errors.

	The problem seem to be that ATrpms wants to upgrade ocaml and that
conflicts with an explicit labltk dependency match from extras.  It also
wants to upgrade lame which conflicts with a lame-mp3x dependency from
Livna.  In each case, yum doesn't know (can't figure out) that it needs
to remove those two packages (should it?) but smart has labltk and
lame-mp3x marked for removal.  That would appear to be the source of the
conflict.  Manually running "yum erase labltk lame-mp3x" also takes out
lablgl, also from extras, (which smart also marked for removal) but
nothing else.  Once I do that, then "yum update" no longer blows a hissy
fit about a dependency problem and claims it wants to install 35
packages and update 34 (none of which I wanted to do - I'll just drop
back to the other excellent suggestion of restricting ATrpms to only
those packages I explicitly want from ATrpms).  So smart figures out
that those three packages need to be removed but yum doesn't and then
complains because some of their dependencies are being invalidated.
That nails down the immediate source of the dependency errors.  Is that
a bug in yum, or is it a bug in the "obsoletes" with some of the other
packages, or is it in a too strict dependency in those other packages,
or none of the above?  I have no idea what those three packages do and
nothing seems to depend on them, so removing them seems perfectly
reasonable. They also only show up on the one system where I have
Asterisk and MythTV, which are the only things I install from ATrpms.
Strange...  I wonder why they got installed on that system in the first
place.

	I wonder if smart would have done better with the kmdl modules for
zaptel as well.  No way of knowing now, since the manual upgrade on that
succeeded and I've got no way to fall back and retest that package.

	Oh well...  Got several interesting toys (thank you for that script)
out of this and a couple of approaches to managing things better plus
explanations for the errors I was seeing.  Much good.  Many thanks.

	Mike
-- 
Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 985-6132 |  mhw at WittsEnd.com
   /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/          | (678) 463-0932 |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
   NIC whois: MHW9          | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471        | possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20060718/323a94bf/attachment-0001.sig>