Re: [tlug] RedHat up2date funnies

[Matt Doughty <mdoughty@example.com>]

> 
> I have rpm-4.0.2-8 installed (came with RH7.1) and up2date is trying to
> put in rpm-4.0.4-7x. I downloaded that rpm from RH's site, but of course
> it won't install, saying:
> 
> error: failed dependencies:
>         rpm = 4.0.2 is needed by rpm-python-4.0.2-8
>         rpm = 4.0.2 is needed by rpm-build-4.0.2-8
>         rpm = 4.0.2 is needed by rpm-devel-4.0.2-8
>         librpm.so.0   is needed by rpm-python-4.0.2-8
>         librpm.so.0   is needed by gnorpm-0.96-1
>         librpm.so.0   is needed by kdeadmin-2.1.1-3
>         librpm.so.0   is needed by rpm-build-4.0.2-8
>         librpm.so.0   is needed by perl-Perl-RPM-0.291-2
>         librpm.so.0   is needed by rpm2html-1.5-4
>         librpm.so.0   is needed by rpmfind-1.6-5
>         librpmbuild.so.0   is needed by kdeadmin-2.1.1-3
>         librpmbuild.so.0   is needed by rpm-build-4.0.2-8
>         librpmio.so.0   is needed by rpm-python-4.0.2-8
>         librpmio.so.0   is needed by gnorpm-0.96-1
>         librpmio.so.0   is needed by kdeadmin-2.1.1-3
>         librpmio.so.0   is needed by rpm-build-4.0.2-8
>         librpmio.so.0   is needed by perl-Perl-RPM-0.291-2
>         librpmio.so.0   is needed by rpm2html-1.5-4
>         librpmio.so.0   is needed by rpmfind-1.6-5
> 
> It certainly seems to be a chicken-and-egg dependency problem.

Yep, I think that is one of the things that drove me away from RH.  It
seems to me that debian does a better job with this kind of thing. When
I used RH I would usually just go wild with --nodeps taking responsibility
for making sure that all the versions were matching when I was done  but, 
I have heard many a individual say that I was doing things the "wrong way" 
if I ever used that option. I never have gotten good explanation of what to 
do in this type of situation though. 

> 
> I'm concerned about just blasting ahead with 4.0.4-7. It doesn't
> seem to recognize later versions. For example, for RH7.2 they just put
> Mozilla 0.99 on the up2date list. I have 1.0 installed already, but it
> won't install several Mozilla-helper apps, saying it *must* have 0.99.
> 

You are left wondering whether it is poor packaging at fault there or if there
is truly a requirement for an exact version match. As is I only use build from
source based package systems these days so I tend to have a completely 
different set of problems now. ;)

> Perhaps I'm building up for a 7.3 upgrade.....
> 

Is that the sound of a bag of pain being opened that I hear?  I certainly
hope that the "upgrade" procedure has improved. Unless of course you mean
a clean install when you say "upgrade". ;) 


--Matt
-- 
"WWJD?  JWRTFM!!!"  --  seen on /.