Re: mutt and squid, removed because of dep problems, errors

[Jim Cornette <redhat-jc insight rr com>]

Sandy Pond wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 07:42 -0500, Jim Cornette wrote: 
>
> > Removing packages that have dep problems, is by no means a solution for 
> > resolving conflicts, with other programs. I don't think doing a nodep is 
> > a good practice either.
>
>
> This is really a custom situation that depends on many things.
>
>
> > For nautilus-media removal, it was more of a test to satisfy other media 
> > applications and on Sandy's detective work on pinning down 
> > nautilus-media as the offending application.
>
>
> This is real easy if you use "yum provides <file>" and "yum list
> <package>" after a dependency failure.  Maybe yum could do a better job
> of doing an automatic "provide" and "list" when it encounters a
> dependency problem. 

Having the program automatically showing which programs are holding back 
the newer installation of libraries or other programs sounds like it 
would help the average user. I found the conflicting newer programs but 
did not know that nautilus-media was the only program that was holding 
back the installation.
I'll try the yum provides and list features for the next failure. Thanks!

> > If this wasn't a test process and things weren't changing so quickly. It 
> > would be better to submit a bug for the problems encountered. However, 
> > without the postings related to the conflicts, it is hard for people to 
> > know what is really going on. One problem, many solutions.
>
>
> This is really a custom situation that depends on many things.

Agreed, I wouldn't remove libs or xfree to remove a minor conflict.

> > Regarding the mutt and squid conflict. I use mutt and don't think that I 
> > use squid. Removing this program was with much hesitation.
>
>
> Case in point.
>
> :)