On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 19:06 -0400, neidorff wrote: > On 7/24/05, Colin J Thomson <colin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sunday 24 Jul 2005 23:18, Blake Thornton wrote: > > > > If you don't understand what your problem is, the correct way to fix it > > > > is definitely NOT to install or uninstall random packages, and hoping for > > > > the best. > > > > > > > > There is absolutely nothing that qmail needs from Perl. Whatever your > > > > Qmail problem is, it has nothing to do with Perl. > > > > > > > > Unless, of course, you've hacked a basic Qmail setup with some > > > > piggy-backed spaghetti code that might use Perl for some particular > > > > purpose. Yes, then, but only then, would a Perl upgrade _might_ cause > > > > something to break. > > > > > > But you are not answering his question. > > > > > > Here's what you do, you can either install the old version using the force > > > option or you can just uninstall perl (as well as the programs that have > > > perl as a dependency) and then install your older version of perl and then > > > try to get everything else working again. > > > > Hmmm.. > > I don't like the idea of "force" being suggested, > > I would suggest "rpm -Uvh --oldpackage blah.rpm" would be the better option.. > > assuming the Perl update has caused your problem? > > > > -Colin > I didn't like the force either, but I tried > #rpm --force -ivh blah.rpm > and it didn't work. At your suggestion, I tried the 'Uvh instead, and > it did. That's because an "upgrade" (-Uvh) removes the existing package(s) of the same name and an "install" (-ivh) doesn't. So you get file clashes using "-ivh" and you don't with "-Uvh". That's why the "upgrade" (which was actually a downgrade, allowed by the --oldpackage option) worked and the "install" didn't. Paul. -- Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
