On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 21:06 -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:51:23 +0100, Rene Bon Ciric (Renich) > <no-reply-gw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > [root@Fedora MySQLclient10-3.23.58-4]# rpm -Uhv mysqlclient10-3.23.58-4.i386.rpm > > Preparing... ########################################### [100%] > > file /usr/lib/mysql/libmysqlclient.so.10.0.0 from install of mysqlclient10-3.23.58-4 conflicts with file from package mysql-3.23.58-14 > > file /usr/lib/mysql/libmysqlclient_r.so.10.0.0 from install of mysqlclient10-3.23.58-4 conflicts with file from package mysql-3.23.58-14 > > > > How do I solve this? > > Perhaps I missed the rest of the thread, but I'm curious why you're > installing an older version (3.23.58-4) over a newer version > (3.23.58-14)? Have you considered applying whatever patches you need > to the source rpm of 3.23.58-14 and then installing that? > > I'd hate to see you miss out on bug / security fixes that may have > been applied to the software between version -4 and version -14. > I was going to ask the same question but notice that the package names are actually different. It looks like the packaging of the rpm's may have changed between mysql v3 and v4 that he is heading towards. Notice that the "new" files are trying to be installed from a package named mysqlclient10 versus the old packaging that had them as part of mysql.... So while the base version of each is eerily identical 3.23.58, the extraversion on the mysqlclient10 is a smaller number (4) versus the older packaging that had the larger number (14). But the error is actually a complaint of a conflict between package names not versions. Of course, this apparent packaging change is why I suggested that he use rpm -Uvh earlier rather than the other suggestion of using rpm -Fvh. I am assuming that he may not have a package named mysqlclient10 currently installed and hence the F would not install it.... Of course, I don't use mysql so could be talking out my proverbial... oops, need to keep it G rated... :-) --Rob
