Troublesome update of a RHEL 4es server

Erling Ringen Elvsrud erlingre at gmail.com
Fri May 16 05:49:38 UTC 2008


Hello list,

I'm trying to update a RHEL 4es server via RH Satellite server.
Running up2date -u gives this result:

root at e11apvl028 ~]# up2date -u

Fetching Obsoletes list for channel: rhel4es_32-bit_x86-test-utv.-utd....

Fetching Obsoletes list for channel:
puppet_rhel4es_32-bit_x86-test-utv.-utd....

Fetching Obsoletes list for channel: ruby_rhel4es_32-bit_x86-test-utv.-utd....

Fetching Obsoletes list for channel:
rh_network_tools_rhel4es_32-bit_x86-test-utv.-utd....

Fetching rpm headers...
########################################

Name                                    Version        Rel
----------------------------------------------------------
firefox                                 1.5.0.12       15.el5_1          i386
gd                                      2.0.33         9.4.el5_1.1       i386
gd-devel                                2.0.33         9.4.el5_1.1       i386
ghostscript                             8.15.2         9.1.el5_1.1       i386
httpd                                   2.0.52         38.ent.2          i386
mod_ssl                                 2.0.52         38.ent.2          i386
php                                     4.3.9          3.22.9            i386
php-ldap                                4.3.9          3.22.9            i386
samba                                   3.0.25b        1.el4_6.4         i386
samba-client                            3.0.25b        1.el4_6.4         i386
sos                                     1.7            6.1.el4_6.2       noarch
speex                                   1.0.5          4.el5_1.1         i386
tzdata                                  2007k          2.el5             noarch
xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL                     6.8.2          1.EL.33.0.2       i386
xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU                    6.8.2          1.EL.33.0.2       i386
xorg-x11-font-utils                     6.8.2          1.EL.33.0.2       i386
xorg-x11-tools                          6.8.2          1.EL.33.0.2       i386
xorg-x11-twm                            6.8.2          1.EL.33.0.2       i386
xorg-x11-xauth                          6.8.2          1.EL.33.0.2       i386
xorg-x11-xdm                            6.8.2          1.EL.33.0.2       i386



Testing package set / solving RPM inter-dependencies...
There was a package dependency problem. The message was:

Unresolvable chain of dependencies:
firefox  1.5.0.12-15.el5_1               requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)
firefox  1.5.0.12-15.el5_1               requires libcairo.so.2
firefox  1.5.0.12-15.el5_1               requires libpangocairo-1.0.so.0
firefox  1.5.0.12-15.el5_1               requires libpng12.so.0(PNG12_0)
firefox-1.5.0.12-15.el5_1                requires nspr >= 4.6
firefox-1.5.0.12-15.el5_1                requires nss >= 3.11.1
gd  2.0.33-9.4.el5_1.1                   requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)
gd  2.0.33-9.4.el5_1.1                   requires libpng12.so.0(PNG12_0)
gd  2.0.33-9.4.el5_1.1                   requires rtld(GNU_HASH)
gd-devel  2.0.33-9.4.el5_1.1             requires libX11-devel
gd-devel  2.0.33-9.4.el5_1.1             requires libXpm-devel
ghostscript  8.15.2-9.1.el5_1.1          requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)
ghostscript  8.15.2-9.1.el5_1.1          requires libpng12.so.0(PNG12_0)
ghostscript  8.15.2-9.1.el5_1.1          requires rtld(GNU_HASH)
gimp-print  4.2.7-2                      requires libijs.so
speex  1.0.5-4.el5_1.1                   requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)
speex  1.0.5-4.el5_1.1                   requires rtld(GNU_HASH)



The following packages were added to your selection to satisfy dependencies:
Package                                Required by
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you have any suggestions for how to solve this? I cannot understand
that the dependencies mentioned are not satisfied, like libc.so.6, and
why are they not just resolved automatically.

Thanks,

Erling




More information about the redhat-list mailing list