On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 02:33 -0500, M. Lewis wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 02:12 -0500, M. Lewis wrote: > >>Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >>>On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 12:06 +1100, Steffen Kluge wrote: > >>>>On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 22:44 -0500, M. Lewis wrote: > >>>>>Error: Missing Dependency: nvidia-glx = 0:1.0.7676 is needed by package > >>>>>kernel-module-nvidia-2.6.13-1.1532_FC4 > >>> > >>> > >>>>The root cause of this issue is that kernel and kernel module packages > >>>>can exist in multiple versions on the same system, since they live in > >>>>versioned directories and have no conflicting files. Other packages > >>>>(like nvidia-glx) cannot have multiple versions installed at the same > >>>>time. If you want to use the latest kernel with NVidia's proprietary > >>>>driver you have to wave your old NVidia kernel modules good-bye. That > >>>>means no proprietary NVidia driver support when you boot older kernels. > >>>> > >>>>Nobody's fault, really. > >>> > >>> > >>>I disagree - It's basically livna's fault. They ought to rebuild > >>>kernel-module-nvidia for all kernels currently being used. > >>> > >>>Otherwise, users will not be able to update. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>The only way out would be convincing someone to > >>>>build the NVidia modules against x number of older kernels, as well. > >>> > >>>Exactly. > >>> > >>>Ralf > >> > >>I really don't care whose fault it might be. > > > > > > It actually is quite simple: Current livna's packaging/update strategy > > puts the rpm dependencies into an inconsistent state, i.e. this is a > > packaging bug. > > > > > >> If you're going to provide > >>an update, then the update should be complete, with any dependencies > >>required. > > > > Yes. Fact is, livna's strategies breaks this rule. > > > > > >>I'm not glued to a given kernel. I could really care less what kernel I > >>run as long as it is stable. > > > > > >>My issue is I have probably over 100 updates to other packages that will > >>no update due to these one or two stupid dependencies. It would seem > >>that the packagers of yum, uptodate, or whatever, would allow the other > >>packages whose dependencies *are* resolved to be updated. > > > > Agreed, but again, the dependencies can not be resolved, because livna's > > packaging strategy is broken. So all installers (yum etc.) can do is to > > try to find a reasonable compromise that doesn't destroy your system, > > i.e. not to update it. > > > > Ralf > > > > > > But what I'm saying is all the other 100 or more packages *could* be > updated. The ones that do *not* have dependencies. Upgrade them and wait > until the others dependencies are resolved. > That approach is certainly a yum issue, not an issue with the packager. I think many of us would agree with that.
