[Yum] arch bug

seth vidal skvidal at phy.duke.edu
Wed Sep 25 21:19:01 UTC 2002


On Wed, 2002-09-25 at 17:11, Jack Neely wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 03:27:45PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > It reports back 'i686'.  If I do a update bproc-modules it wants to
> > > install i686.  Checked the package in the tree and the i686 arch is
> > > there and seems sane.
> > > 
> > 
> > ok I'm using my test machine and I'm not liking what I'm finding.
> > 
> > I'm not getting athlon suggestions, but I'm not getting suggestions that
> > seem consistent.
> > 
> > I'm trying to sort it out now.
> > 
> > just to be clear - the pkg beowulf should pull in those other packages -
> > are there any obsoletes among those pkgs?
> > 
> > -sv
> > 
> 
> Yes there are obsoletes among the other packages.  The stuff that is
> obsoleted is not versioned nor should any of it be installed.  You can
> get at the stuff at ftp://rk-devel.pams.ncsu.edu/ncsubeo
> 

so I found another bestarch bug in the depresolve - but I've also found
some sort of bug in those packages.

bproc-modules requires kernel = 2.4.19-ncsubeo.0
kernel-beoboot provides kernel = 2.4.19

but it appears that rpm is perfect happy that an install of
bproc-modules and kernel-beoboot completely satisfy all deps.

I did it manually and via yum.
rpm -Va --nofiles --nomd5 says the rpmdb is dep-correct.

so there is a package problem and you have ferreted out a bizarro-world
bug.

I'll put up another snapshot shortly.

thanks
-sv

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.baseurl.org/pipermail/yum/attachments/20020925/904aace8/attachment-0001.pgp 


More information about the Yum mailing list