Re: Yum better than RPM?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 12:52 -0800, alan wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Kam Leo wrote:
> > On 3/1/06, alan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Albert A. Modderkolk wrote:
> >>
> >>> I also get this message when trying to update ImageMagick:
> >>>
> >>> Resolving Dependencies
> >>> --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait.
> >>> ---> Package ImageMagick.x86_64 0: set to be updated
> >>> ---> Package ImageMagick.i386 0: set to be updated
> >>> --> Running transaction check
> >>> --> Processing Dependency: ImageMagick = for package:
> >>> ImageMagick-c++
> >>> --> Finished Dependency Resolution
> >>> Error: Missing Dependency: ImageMagick = is needed by
> >>> package ImageMagick-c++
> >>>
> >>> ImageMagick seems to require a backward version... are we back to RPM's
> >>> dependency nightmares?  How can I fix this?
> >>
> >> You are missreading that.  ImageMagick-c++ is what needs the old version.
> >> Sound like whoever built ImageMagick-c++ has not rebuilt it for the new
> >> version.
> >>
> >> Yum is there to resolve rpm dependacy problems, but it cannot do so if
> >> people do not rebuild packages with hard dependancies in the first place.
> >>
> >> If package A depends on package Z version 1.0 and package Z gets updated
> >> to version 1.1, package A has to be rebuilt so it can be upgraded as well.
> >>
> >
> > There is a newer version of ImageMagick-c++ which matches the other
> > two packages being installed. The OP did not download it. Perhaps he
> > was not aware of its availability?
> If he is using Yum, it should download it as well.  (Assuming it is on one 
> of the repositories that Yum is configured for.)
> There are a couple of things that could be happening here though.  I 
> noticed that he is using an x86_64 build.  In that case you can get some 
> weird problems that Yum does not quite handle correctly.
> If you tell yum to "yum update  ImageMagick" and it has only one 
> architecture of ImageMagick-c++ available, it will give you that warning 
> without telling you which architecture it is failing for.  This is due to 
> the weird quirk that on that platform you can have both 32 bit and 64 bit 
> packages installed at the same time.  (I have an AMD64 laptop.  I see that 
> problem every once in a while.  Especially if the i386 packages get 
> deprecated or never get added to the x86_64 repository.)

Yes, I should have taken a 32-bit system.  64 bits don't bring much in
performance at this time and lots of problems...  I sometimes dream of
Firefox showing me a jigsaw piece and telling me to download the latest
and greatest plug-in... which isn't there for 64-bit systems!

[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux