Michael Schwendt wrote:
On 16/01/2008, Les Mikesell wrote:
If your library has a different name, how can it conflict?
A different name in RPM space is insufficient as long as the library
sonames in run-time linker's space are not different, too.
Or even if
your application puts your library location first in a search path?
That *is* possible already, but requires lots of extra efforts at the
packaging-front. And you don't want per-application local libraries
instead of system libraries, do you?
Notice that several libraries and applications can even be built with
a different feature-set.
Which is why multiple versions should be expected to co-exist.
The howto that can be applied to a large-scale packaging project like
Fedora is missing. You don't want extra burden for volunteers with
questionable or no benefit.
Even multiple major releases of libraries
cannot coexist peacefully, if not all packagers take extra (sometimes
huge) efforts to avoid conflicts between data/doc/development files,
and e.g. package them as "libfoo2" and "libfoo3".
Doesn't that tell you something?
Yes, it tells me a lot, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.
I think your right. But here is something useful for this thread:
This the test for Wednesday Jan 16, 2008 and conditions are that
/etc/yum.repos.d is as is seen below. The livna repo files have never
even been looked at with "less". The other/ is a sub directory where I
store both livna and freshrpms repo files. That way I can change what
yum can see.
[root@localhost ~]# ls /etc/yum.repos.d/
fedora-development.repo fedora-updates.repo livna.repo
Fedora-install-media.repo fedora-updates-testing.repo livna-testing.repo
fedora.repo livna-devel.repo other
[root@localhost ~]#
The livna.repo files are dated. The livna.repo file is
2008-01-15.That is impossible! The fedora.repo is dated 2007-12-12. The
livna.devel.repo is dated 2008.01-15. In anycase I got the below.
Install 40 Package(s)
Update 0 Package(s)
Remove 0 Package(s)
Total download size: 19 M
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Downloading Packages:
warning: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID a109b1ec
GPG key retrieval failed: [Errno 5] OSError: [Errno 2] No such file or
directory: '/etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-livna'
[root@localhost ~]#
Another RPM-GPG-KEY error. So I am going to replace the livna.repo
files from the lina RPM and see what we have and try again.
Here is what I did:
livna-release-8.rpm NVIDIA-Linux-x86-100.14.19-pkg1.run Videos
[root@localhost karl]# rpm -i livna-release-8.rpm
warning: livna-release-8.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID
a109b1ec
[root@localhost karl]#
Checking the repo location shows:
[root@localhost yum.repos.d]# ls
fedora-development.repo fedora-updates.repo livna.repo
Fedora-install-media.repo fedora-updates-testing.repo livna-testing.repo
fedora.repo livna-devel.repo other
[root@localhost yum.repos.d]# ls -al livna.repo
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1808 2007-11-07 09:11 livna.repo
[root@localhost yum.repos.d]#
With the new livna files the "yum install vlc" worked and installed
vlc for me. It works fine so far. Here is the difference:
warning: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID a109b1ec
Importing GPG key 0xA109B1EC "Livna.org rpms <rpm-key@xxxxxxxxx>" from
/etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-livna
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Running rpm_check_debug
Running Transaction Test
Finished Transaction Test
Transaction Test Succeeded
Running Transaction
Installing: x264 ####################### [ 1/40]
See the "Is this ok [y/N]:? That was not there the last many times. I
said Yes and it went on and ended like this:
19.lvn8 xosd.i386 0:2.2.14-10.fc8 xvidcore.i386 0:1.1.3-1.lvn8
Complete!
[root@localhost ~]#
So my opinion is the saved lina.repo had the date change that
confused the livna repo system. But today was the day I got vlc on my
new F8 computer!
And all the the help I received made this possible. Sometimes I just
read what you wrote and tried it. I can help others with the same basic
problem now.
Karl
