On 8/30/06, Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Axel Liljencrantz wrote: > Hi, > > On 8/29/06, Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 20:43 +0200, Axel Liljencrantz wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > The evolution and gnome-panel packages for Fedora have had broken >> > dependencies causing them to be impossible to update for almost 3 >> > months. >> >> Which Fedora release are you using, which versions of these packages do >> you have installed, and what happens when you do "yum update"? > > I neglected to include that information because before writing my > original email, I did a search and found that this exact problem > reported to this list on June 5 of this year (see > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2006-June/msg00548.html). > Sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusions in assuming this was the > same problem, still unfixed. Anyway, this was confirmed as a package > bug in that thread. I just tried an update now, with the same results > as in that message but with different version numbers: > > root@hellboy /h/axel> yum update > Setting up Update Process > Setting up repositories > core [1/4] > ftp://redhat.taygeta.com/pub/RedHat/fedora/core/5/i386/os/repodata/repomd.xml: > > [Errno 4] IOError: [Errno ftp error] timed out > Trying other mirror. > core 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 > updates [2/4] > updates 100% |=========================| 1.2 kB 00:00 > freshrpms [3/4] > freshrpms 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 > extras [4/4] > extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 > Reading repository metadata in from local files > Resolving Dependencies > --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait. > ---> Package evolution-sharp.i386 0:0.10.2-9.5 set to be updated > ---> Package gnome-panel.i386 0:2.14.3-1.fc5 set to be updated > ---> Package gnome-panel-devel.i386 0:2.14.3-1.fc5 set to be updated > ---> Package evolution.i386 0:2.6.3-1.fc5.5 set to be updated > --> Running transaction check > --> Processing Dependency: libecal-1.2.so.6 for package: evolution-sharp > --> Processing Dependency: libecal-1.2.so.6 for package: evolution > --> Processing Dependency: libecal-1.2.so.6 for package: gnome-panel > --> Processing Dependency: libegroupwise-1.2.so.10 for package: evolution > --> Finished Dependency Resolution > Error: Missing Dependency: libecal-1.2.so.6 is needed by package > evolution-sharp > Error: Missing Dependency: libecal-1.2.so.6 is needed by package evolution > Error: Missing Dependency: libecal-1.2.so.6 is needed by package > gnome-panel > Error: Missing Dependency: libegroupwise-1.2.so.10 is needed by > package evolution > > I assumed that since at that time it was confirmed as a bug in the > package, and since the error message looks identical, that this was > the same bugl. If this is a new bug, then I am sorry about the > confusion and wish to report this as a brand new bug. I am using an > (otherwise) fully patched FC5, just like the original reporter. libecal-1.2.so.6 and libegroupwise-1.2.so.10 should be provided by evolution-data-server-1.6.3-1.fc5.2, which is available in the updates repository. What version of evolution-data-server do you have installed?
root@hellboy /h/axel> rpm -qi evolution-data-server Name : evolution-data-server Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 1.7.2 Vendor: Red Hat, Inc. Release : 1 Build Date: Wed 17 May 2006 06:26:09 PM CEST Install Date: Thu 08 Jun 2006 12:57:45 AM CEST Build Host: hs20-bc1-5.build.redhat.com Group : System Environment/Libraries Source RPM: evolution-data-server-1.7.2-1.src.rpm Size : 12198405 License: LGPL [...] So I have a newer relese of e-d-s than what is in the repositories, and it was released by RH. My guess would be that a newer e-d-s version was released, and then pulled because it contained bugs, but no-one remebered to increase the epoch number in the replacement package to make sure those poor users (like me) who installed the b0rked version would get the update. Or something like that. If that is the case, then this particular problem could actually be fixed by yum if it was smart enough to notice that by downgrading one package to the most recent version in the repo, then all upgrades could be performed.
> Since at least the original bug was caused by the upload of a package > that had incorrect dependencies, I resubmit that the package building > process could be improved to better check that a new batch of packages > only depend on themselves and packages already in fedora. That would be good, yes, and it's quite possible. It would prevent things like the libparted-1.6.so.14 dependency issue that happened earlier today.
Is there something non-redhat people like me could do to make this happen sooner rather than later?
Paul. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
-- Axel
