On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 22:43 +0100, Bernd Radinger wrote: > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:31:37 -0600, Jeff Vian <jvian10@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 2. It tried to remove libaasound.so.2 and libFLAC.so.4 plus one other I > > don't remember. All of which were required for one or more packages > > already installed > > 'flac' and 'alsa-lib' are from FC, not Fedora.us. Exactly.. Packages from FC were being modified by an update from fedora.us > > > 3. process of elimination identified the problem repo. > > I removed repos, one at a time, and tried the update with each removal, > > then re-added thttp://www.wellsfargo.com/hat repo and removed the next. > > dag, newrpms, freshrpms, atrpms, then last fedora.us. > > That is a side-effect of repository-mixing. Some of the other > repositories do upgrade or modify 'alsa-lib' and 'flac', Fedora.us > doesn't. In my experience and the example above your statement is incorrect (at least in this case). Removal of the fedora.us repo from my list was the only action that eliminated the dependency problem. > > > "Packages in Fedora Extras must not conflict with packages in > > > Fedora Core." > > > > > > Fedora.US has some packages that do not meet this requirement. > > Your theory is void. > > -- > Bernd >
