On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 12:52 -0800, alan wrote: > On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Kam Leo wrote: > > > On 3/1/06, alan <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Albert A. Modderkolk wrote: > >> > >>> I also get this message when trying to update ImageMagick: > >>> > >>> Resolving Dependencies > >>> --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait. > >>> ---> Package ImageMagick.x86_64 0:6.2.2.0-3.fc4.1 set to be updated > >>> ---> Package ImageMagick.i386 0:6.2.2.0-3.fc4.1 set to be updated > >>> --> Running transaction check > >>> --> Processing Dependency: ImageMagick = 6.2.2.0-3.fc4.0 for package: > >>> ImageMagick-c++ > >>> --> Finished Dependency Resolution > >>> Error: Missing Dependency: ImageMagick = 6.2.2.0-3.fc4.0 is needed by > >>> package ImageMagick-c++ > >>> > >>> ImageMagick seems to require a backward version... are we back to RPM's > >>> dependency nightmares? How can I fix this? > >> > >> You are missreading that. ImageMagick-c++ is what needs the old version. > >> Sound like whoever built ImageMagick-c++ has not rebuilt it for the new > >> version. > >> > >> Yum is there to resolve rpm dependacy problems, but it cannot do so if > >> people do not rebuild packages with hard dependancies in the first place. > >> > >> If package A depends on package Z version 1.0 and package Z gets updated > >> to version 1.1, package A has to be rebuilt so it can be upgraded as well. > >> > > > > There is a newer version of ImageMagick-c++ which matches the other > > two packages being installed. The OP did not download it. Perhaps he > > was not aware of its availability? > > If he is using Yum, it should download it as well. (Assuming it is on one > of the repositories that Yum is configured for.) > > There are a couple of things that could be happening here though. I > noticed that he is using an x86_64 build. In that case you can get some > weird problems that Yum does not quite handle correctly. > > If you tell yum to "yum update ImageMagick" and it has only one > architecture of ImageMagick-c++ available, it will give you that warning > without telling you which architecture it is failing for. This is due to > the weird quirk that on that platform you can have both 32 bit and 64 bit > packages installed at the same time. (I have an AMD64 laptop. I see that > problem every once in a while. Especially if the i386 packages get > deprecated or never get added to the x86_64 repository.) > Yes, I should have taken a 32-bit system. 64 bits don't bring much in performance at this time and lots of problems... I sometimes dream of Firefox showing me a jigsaw piece and telling me to download the latest and greatest plug-in... which isn't there for 64-bit systems!
