On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 12:10, Nat Gross wrote:
> On 11/7/05, Kenneth Porter <shiva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --On Monday, November 07, 2005 2:27 PM -0600 Thomas Cameron
> <thomas.cameron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Very possibly. The thing is, if Amarok uses MySQL, I am
> betting big
> > that according to the FC distro comps.xml file, Amarok uses
> MySQL 3.x.
> > When you updated, yum just did its best to get you up to
> date according
> > the comps.xml file.
>
> Does yum downgrade packages? I've installed RPMs with a higher
> version than
> what's available from my configured repos (typically packages
> I've built
> myself), and haven't seen yum try to replace them with
> down-level packages.
>
> I'm suspecting that there's something fishy about the version
> information
> in the installed package that caused yum to think the repo
> package was a
> higher version. Was it installed from tarball, bypassing RPM,
> perhaps?
>
> The installed pkg, mysql 4.1x was done from an RPM, but without yum.
> You do bring out an important point. -y would not be that dangerous if
> YUM behaved. Yum *was* the culprit!
Well, no. yum understands dependencies within the same
distribution with RPMs created with the same conventions
for version numbering. Someone else is the culpit for
installing things yum it doesn't know about. If you had
installed mysql and the client libraries that go with that
version with yum it would not have removed it, but it
probably also wouldn't have attempted to install something
that required a downrev version from what you had.
By the way, what does /var/log/yum.log say about the event?
Did it try to erase the 4.x version or not even see it?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
