mutt and squid, removed because of dep problems, errors
Jim Cornette
redhat-jc at insight.rr.com
Wed Mar 17 22:37:07 UTC 2004
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.
>
> :)
>
>
More information about the fedora-test-list
mailing list