where are libgimp and libgimpui?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 07:24:02 -0500 (EST), Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 
> > 
> >   after finally gotten all the way through "yum list updates",
> > i typed "yum update" only to get:
> > 
> > Gathering header information file(s) from server(s)
> > Server: Fedora Core 1.90 - Development Tree
> > Finding updated packages
> > Downloading needed headers
> > Resolving dependencies
> > .Package gimp-perl needs libgimp-1.2.so.0, this is not available.
> > Package gimp-perl needs libgimpui-1.2.so.0, this is not available.
> > 
> >   no problem, thinks i, surely someone else would have seen this as well,
> > so, as a first attempt, i went to the list archives at www.redhat.com and
> > did a search on "libgimp" on the archives, only to be told that
> > www.redhat.com was currently unavailable, but hey, would i like to buy
> > something?
> > 
> >   grrrrrr ....
> 
> Grrrr. You've crippled your yum.conf file. The Fedora Core 1.90 base
> channel is missing and hence The Gimp 1.2.5:
> 
> $ rpm --redhatprovides libgimp-1.2.so.0 libgimpui-1.2.so.0
> gimp-1.2.5-1
> gimp-1.2.5-1

i don't agree with your diagnosis.  in the first place, i'm using the
original yum.conf file as it was installed, so i haven't "crippled" it in
any way.  and, as it was installed, the only uncommented channel was the
one for development.

regarding the other (originally) commented channels, they're not even
valid -- they refer to non-existent 
http://fedora.redhat.com/{updates,releases} URLs.  more to the point,
since i did an *everything* install, technically, i shouldn't even *need*
a base channel, should i?  isn't the base channel, by definition, the 
contents of the original release?  if i installed everything, then, by 
definition, don't i already have everything from the base channel?

which, by the way, i verified by noting that, yes, i do have gimp-1.2.5-1
on this FC2-test1 box.  so, if my "yum update" is failing due to lack
of libs, and these libs are part of an *already-installed* package, then
someone or something is definitely confused.  i don't think yum should be
complaining about a lack of dependencies when those dependencies are
part of a package that is already installed on my system.

rday