On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 05:43:23PM -0500, Trey Sizemore wrote: > On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 23:33 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 05:08:42PM -0500, Trey Sizemore wrote: > > > On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 22:58 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 04:49:48PM -0500, Trey Sizemore wrote: > > > > > I have the following repositories setup for yum, and I'm getting package > > > > > conflicts during updates due to version mismatches: > > > > No, the repos should be fine (but you are living a bit dangerously > > > > activating testing and bleeding repos). > > > > > > > > But there is a bug in yum that is triggered by some of the repos most > > > > notably ATrpms: > > > > > > > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2005-January/msg01826.html > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=144376 > > > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=289 > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=140832 > > > > > > > > The bugs seems to have been fixed in yum's CVS, but there hasn't been > > > > as yum release since. You can either use a CVS yum package from ATrpms: > > > > > > > > http://atrpms.net/name/yum-bleeding/ > > > > > > > > or use anyother resolver like apt or smart: > > > > > > > > http://atrpms.net/name/apt/ > > > > http://atrpms.net/name/smart/ > > > > > No, it's the bug above. yum <= 2.1.12 collects multiple packages > > during calculation of dependencies, including old ones. > > Will I have to update my yum.conf file as well once I've installed the > CVS version of yum from your repo or will I be able to continue using my > current one? yum at ATrpms has no config files, these are split out into other packages. But note that this is a package in bleeding for yum CVS (e.g. unreleased code with possible unknown bugs). Just keep this in mind, if you want to test this. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpMIu3X6dQFc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
