On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:57:28PM -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 03:24 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > But it's not a real problem, on ATrpms' archives you'll find
> > three-line recipes that effectively do what you want it to do.
>
> Funny... Livna doesn't seem to have this problem.
>
> Ok... You got some URL's or even some search terms or are we just
> suppose to spider the archives?
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 09:10:20AM +0200, Eric Tanguy wrote:
> I don't have this problem with kernel module from livna but it does not
> matter. If there is a recipe to do this, can you please give me a more
> precise pointer and maybe this recipe need to be somewhere on your
> website.
> Eric
The issues are with upgrading within a kernel and coinstalling for
different kernels. If you merge the two different versions then the
system can never know whether the packages are to be coinstalled or
replaced and upgraded. *Both* operations are required. ATrpms solves
this by requiring one to be done manually. If you merge the versions
you either sacrifice upgrades within a kernel line or supporting
concurrently installed kernels.
Here is a more elaborate script ripped out of my own
anaconda/reinstall system:
kernels=`rpm -qf /boot/vmlinuz-* | grep -v "^file .* is not owned by any package"`
uname_rs=`rpm -ql $kernels | grep ^/boot/vmlinuz- | sed -e's,^/boot/vmlinuz-\(.*\)$,\1,'`
for kmdl in `rpm -qa \*kmdl\* | sed -e's,-kmdl-.*,-kmdl,' | sort -u`;
do
for uname_r in $uname_rs; do
package=${kmdl}-$uname_r
rpm -q $package > /dev/null 2>&1 || echo $package
done
done | xargs -r smart install -y
It will coinstall kmdls for any newly installed kernel, even an older
one.
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:57:28PM -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> --> Running transaction check
> --> Processing Dependency: ocaml = 3.09.2-1.fc5 for package: labltk
> --> Processing Dependency: lame = 3.96.1-6.lvn5 for package: lame-mp3x
> --> Finished Dependency Resolution
> Error: Missing Dependency: ocaml = 3.09.2-1.fc5 is needed by package labltk
> Error: Missing Dependency: lame = 3.96.1-6.lvn5 is needed by package lame-mp3x
>
> (I'm looking at most of what it wanted to update and I'm coming to the
> conclusion that ATrpms and Livna have never learned to play nicey nicey
> in the same sandbox).
I think this conclusion is wrong. In your example above there isn't
any ATrpms package. Also livna and ATrpms are at good terms, even
though incompatibilites between different repos may always arise. But
even here the maintainers are thinking of better solutions. Still the
above example has no ATrpms in it, so it is not from the
incompatibilities category.
> I've been in dependency hell too often after making that mistake and
> the above is an illustration why.
You should perhaps try using smart instead of yum. At the very least
it will not bail out and you will get a better understanding of which
package was trying to block the upgrade process.
> If I am totally up to date with the other repositories, why in the name
> of Budda does ATrpm try to update stuff that was never installed from
> ATrpms in the first place and then dick up the dependencies????
Sorry, see above, there is nothing from ATrpms trying to install.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpOFX9vKnOrF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
