flac, gstreamer-plugins, etc.

Jim Cornette fct-cornette at insight.rr.com
Fri Apr 8 11:31:21 UTC 2005


Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 21:42:34 -0400, Jim Cornette wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>mplayer from livna?
>>>
>>>
>>>mplayer is not mentioned in the error output at all, but gstreamer-plugins
>>>is. And "livna" does not offer packages for FC4T1/Rawhide anyway.
>>>
>>
>>On my system, mplayer was mentioned in the output of conflicts with the 
>>same packages installed. This system is an FC3 version that I chose to 
>>install everything and then upgraded multimedia and extras packages from 
>>the repos needed.
> 
> 
> Fine, fine. But "Gene C.", who opened this thread, did not post any error
> output which mentions mplayer and did not mention an FC3 upgrade either,
> but an "everything install of FC4T1". So, what are you trying to point
> out?

Not an everything install of FC4T1. It was an eveything install of FC3. 
I had to pull in kernel-devel to get vmware to work and also the 
additional xscreensavers-extras. The pointing out that this was an 
everything install was to indicate that other than the removal of 
langpacks for openoffice and the removal of additional language packages 
for kde, everything is installed. With everything installed, it is more 
likely that there will be more packages that could conflict in the database.

> 
> 
>>Since Fedora Extras is not supposed to be dependent on livna, the 
>>multimedia (mplayer in this case) sounds like it might become a problem 
>>with worthy repositories like livna.
> 
> 
> Here, I don't understand either what you're trying to point out. The
> dependency is in the opposite direction: livna depends on Fedora Extras.
> But as long as the packages at livna are not rebuilt for FC4 Test
> releases (or Rawhide), you cannot keep FC3 livna packages installed
> without seeing broken dependencies with Rawhide.

I thought about the direction that deps could be after posting. So 
without having livna as a repo, you should be able to install packages 
from either Fedora-Extras or from Fedora Core. This seems rational.

Regarding the deps against a package that I have installed, which is not 
   upgraded to play well with the lib versions in FC4T1, I expected the 
deps to be unresolved and was willing to hold back the 10 to 15 rpms 
that were effected. The limitation is not holding me back now, but flac 
was the holdup before and errors pointed to k3b (from Fedora) and to 
mplayer (from livna).

Now referring to the dep problem, I would like an update program capable 
of installing programs that deps could be met. The last massive rebuild 
had 94 rpms that could be upgrade with script trickery using the package 
selection from yum. I installed another 8 rpms after the first run with 
using the same script method for round 2. This left the multimedia 
related packages in earlier postings not upgradable, but no deps were 
broken previously. It is possible to devise such a program that could do 
its best and report back unmet dep resolutions. Scripting hacks work, 
but the distribution would be better served with a program that also had 
builtin capabilities to do this upgrading/resolving without the need for 
additional scripts.

Jim

> 


-- 
Due to a shortage of devoted followers, the production of great leaders
has been discontinued.




More information about the fedora-test-list mailing list