Yum packages (again)

Todd Zullinger tmz at pobox.com
Mon Feb 25 04:42:48 UTC 2008

Da Rock wrote:
> I think you miss my point a little. This is a bug- but who do I
> report it to? Yum developers or the repos? Seeing as Yum is
> misreporting the packages it would seem that Yum is a problem and
> needs to be extended to resolve these issues.
> Sure, as sysadmin I can get in and mess around fixing these problems
> manually, but if this is being misreported, then how well do you
> think updates are going to completed? Not to mention other less
> experienced users...

But I'm not sure there's a bug.  You said that you had problems after
enabling both freshrpms and livna packages.  Until you are positive
that you have removed all traces of both I don't think you can be sure
you're not seeing a problem caused by the incompatibility.  Are both
freshrpms and livna still enabled?

You said that yum did not install some codecs "due to a missing
libx264.so.56."  It could be that you have a package installed that
provides that library and the yum install was going to remove it as
part of the update process.  These types of dependency interactions
can often be confusing to track.

If you can reproduce a problem like you're having with a clean install
and only livna or freshrpms enabled, then you might have something
worth filing a bug about.  Is that the case here?  If so, post some
yum output to demonstrate the problem.

Todd        OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
I do not want people to be agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of
liking them.
    -- Jane Austen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20080224/c066b718/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the fedora-list mailing list