On Thu, 2005-12-22 at 15:19 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote:
> 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.
> > >>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.
> > 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.
No disagreement, here. This issue ("how to react upon broken rpm-deps")
is a yum problem, however, the broken rpm-deps are a livna issue.
If livna recompiled kernel-module-nvidia for older kernels, this thread
would not have appeared. Their current method however, forces anybody to
manually do this by themselves or to find other ways around it.
Ralf
