[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Summary - Broken dependencies in Fedora Extras - 2006-09-15



On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:41:35 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:

> On Fri, 2006-09-15 at 15:53 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
> > [...]
> > >     ville.skytta AT iki.fi
> > >         kmod-em8300 - 0.15.3-7.2.6.17_1.2174_FC5.i586    
> > >         kmod-em8300 - 0.15.3-7.2.6.17_1.2174_FC5.i686    
> > >         kmod-em8300 - 0.15.3-7.2.6.17_1.2174_FC5.ppc    
> > >         kmod-em8300 - 0.15.3-7.2.6.17_1.2174_FC5.x86_64    
> > >         kmod-em8300-kdump - 0.15.3-7.2.6.17_1.2174_FC5.i686    
> > >         kmod-em8300-kdump - 0.15.3-7.2.6.17_1.2174_FC5.x86_64    
> > >         kmod-em8300-smp - 0.15.3-7.2.6.17_1.2174_FC5.i686    
> > >         kmod-em8300-smp - 0.15.3-7.2.6.17_1.2174_FC5.ppc    
> > >         kmod-em8300-xen0 - 0.15.3-7.2.6.17_1.2174_FC5.i686    
> > >         kmod-em8300-xen0 - 0.15.3-7.2.6.17_1.2174_FC5.x86_64    
> > [...]
> > > package: kmod-em8300-xen0 - 0.15.3-7.2.6.17_1.2174_FC5.i686 from fedora-extras-5-i386
> > >   unresolved deps: 
> > >      kernel-i686 = 0:2.6.17-1.2174_FC5xen0
> > 
> > False positive? The kernel seems to still be around...
> 
> I don't know the details how this script works, but I guess if it
> examines only the newest version of each package in the repos, that
> could be the culprit (ie. in this case a new kernel was available so
> maybe it ignored the 2nd newest one even if it was there?).

Yes. Checking against only the newest version of every package is
intentional, since for the majority of packages, an ordinary "yum update"
also retrieves the newest packages, removing old versions. Only then dep
breakage is discovered.

Yesterday's report is positive, however. Dependencies on old kernels are
permitted, now, except if the old kernel is not available anymore.



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]