livna nvidia update problem

[Mikkel L. Ellertson]

Les wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 08:43 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:03:28 +0200 (CEST)
>> Jim van Wel <jim at coolzero.info> wrote:
>>
>>> rpm -e --nodeps packagename
>> Eek and egad.  Every time I see someone recommending "--nodeps" or "--force"
>> to install any rpm it gives me a shiver down my spine....
> Hi, Frank,
> 	I am new to Fedora (about 1 year now), but I understand some of the
> problem, but perhaps you should elucidate for the new users or
> uninitiated folks about the results that can occur from these options
> and also when it is reasonable to use one of them.  There are reasons on
> both sides I am sure, but I don't yet know all the "ins and outs" of the
> process, so don't feel competent to advise any one on this issue.
> 
> Thanks,
> Les H
> 
Using "--nodeps" or "--force" can result in anything from a program
that will not run all the way up to breaking RPM itself, or a system
that will not boot. It depends on the package being
installed/upgraded/removed. Looking at the list of programs that
will break if you do not use these options is a good start in
determining if it is safe. But the list may not be complete, because
there can be other packages that depend on the packages you are
breaking. Also, not all package list all the packages they depend on.

Yum does a better job of listing the packages you will break,
because it follows the chain of program dependencies. But it takes
longer to produce the list. This is why you sometimes gets a list of
50 packages that will be removed when you tell yum to remove one
package.

I do not know of any simple rule that can tell you when it is safe
to use "--nodeps" or "--force", and when it is not. When it is a
"top level" program, it usually fairly safe. If it is a program
needed for system operation, it probably isn't. When you are talking
about libraries, you have to know what the library is used for.

It is usually safe when the new package only update the minor
version number. (2.5.3 to 2.5.4) This is not susposed to break any
thing. Changing the mid-level version is more of a gamble. (2.5.1 to
2.6.1) It may not be backward compatible. Changing the major version
will almost always break things. (2.5.1 to 3.0.1) This is why the
version numbers are constructed the way they are. But not everyone
follows them.

If a package says it needs package a.b.c, it will usually work with
a.b.d, but this is not a hard and fast rule. You should read the
release notes to make sure. The reverse may not be true. A package
that says it needs a.b.d or greater is probably not going to work
with a.b.c. If it says a.b.c or less, it probably is not going to
work with a.b.d - the program is probably counting on something that
changed in the updated version. (Usually because of a bug or
undocumented function that is not longer there.)

I hope this helps. This is one area where experience is necessary to
make the proper decisions, and you are still taking a risk. You just
have a better idea of the risk level.

Mikkel
-- 

  Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20070924/9b199c81/attachment-0001.sig>