Yum packages (again)
pocallaghan at gmail.com
Mon Feb 25 05:37:59 UTC 2008
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 14:51 +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 14:19 +1000, Da Rock wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 23:01 -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> > > Da Rock wrote:
> > > > Ok, I know a little of this has been covered before, but I have some new
> > > > info after some exhaustive debugging.
> > > >
> > > > After the feedback regarding the repo conflicts, I decided to resolve
> > > > this once and for all. I uninstalled all mplayer, x264 and xine
> > > > packages, and reinstalled only the livna versions.
> > > >
> > > > This produced mixed results. Firstly, Yum reported the packages
> > > > installed. When you go back and check what is installed (version, etc)
> > > > it stated that the freshrpms versions were installed- but only some. So
> > > > I ended up with some livna and some freshrpms, despite the fact that I
> > > > selected only livna packages to be installed.
> > >
> > > You may want to disable or remove the freshrpms and livna repo files
> > > in /etc/yum.repos.d and then use yum list extras to find what packages
> > > are still installed from either of those repositories. Something
> > > like:
> > >
> > > yum --disablerepo livna --disablerepo freshrpms list extras
> > >
> > > might help you locate the packages that are still installed from
> > > either livna or freshrpms.
> > >
> > > Once you clean everything up and only have one of those repositories
> > > enabled, you should find that things work a bit smoother. There are
> > > sometimes still occasional hiccups, especially with packages that
> > > extend things that are in Fedora, but nothing more than you see
> > > occasionally even within the stock repos.
> > >
> > > > So I put it to all- what the hell is going on here? Neither repo
> > > > appears to be able to declare what the packages ACTUALLY provide,
> > > > and Yum is getting very confused. So who's fault is it? Where does
> > > > the responsibility lie?
> > >
> > > The responsibility lies with each user/admin. If you enable third
> > > party repositories that conflict with each other, you are responsible
> > > for cleaning it up. It's a mess, for sure. That's why it's not
> > > recommended or supported.
> > 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...
> Let me put it this way- libx264.so.56 is found at /usr/lib on my system.
> So why doesn't Yum see that this library is installed? And why does it
> see libx264.so.56 in the freshrpms package when it clearly isn't?
Because it doesn't care what files are actually there, only what its
internal database (or rather the rpm internal database) *says* is there.
What do you get from "rpm -qf /usr/lib/libx264.so.56"? It should tell
you what package the file belongs to. If it says the file belongs to no
package then some sequence of installs and removals has caused the
database to be out of sync with reality, in which case "rpm --rebuilddb"
If on the other hand it does come up with a package name, run "rpm
--verify <package>" and see what happens.
More information about the fedora-list