Re: rpm gets some deps wrong?

[Frank Cusack <fcusack fcusack com>]

On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:42:33AM -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> Frank Cusack wrote:
> 
> >I don't understand why rpm is complaining about breaking a dependency,
> >when the package being removed doesn't provide said dependency:
> >
> >[root@mother root]# rpm -e kernel-smp-2.4.21-gg3
> >error: Failed dependencies:
> >	kernel-smp = 2.4.21-gg2 is needed by (installed) NVIDIA_kernel-2.4.21-gg2-smp-1.0-4363gg10
> >	kernel-smp = 2.4.21-gg2 is needed by (installed) bcm5700-2.4.21-gg2-smp-6.2.11-gg3
> >
> 
> It's not the package you're adding, it's the package that is already 
> installed, that
> has a requirement that would be broken if the --erase were to occur.
> 
> 
> >[root@mother root]# rpm -q --whatprovides kernel-smp
> >kernel-smp-2.4.20-8
> >kernel-smp-2.4.20-19.9
> >kernel-smp-2.4.21-gg2
> >kernel-smp-2.4.21-gg3
> >[root@mother root]# rpm -q --provides kernel-smp-2.4.21-gg3
> >kernel = 2.4.21
> >kernel-drm = 4.1.0
> >kernel-drm = 4.2.0
> >kernel-drm = 4.2.99.3
> >kernel-drm = 4.3.0
> >module-info  
> >kernel-smp = 20030716:2.4.21-gg3
> >
> ---------------------^^^^^^^
> 
> is probably you problem., the requirement of the installed package (most 
> likely)
> does not specify an Epoch:. missing epoch is treated as epoch: 0 after 
> install.

But so what?  The requirement is for a specific version 2.4.21-gg2.
The rpm I'm erasing doesn't provide that version.  And in fact there
is another rpm installed (kernel-smp-2.4.21-gg2, you can see it in
the --whatprovides output) which does provide that version.

[root@mother root]# rpm -q --provides kernel-smp-2.4.21-gg2
kernel = 2.4.21
kernel-drm = 4.1.0
kernel-drm = 4.2.0
kernel-drm = 4.2.99.3
kernel-drm = 4.3.0
module-info
kernel-smp = 20030716:2.4.21-gg2

So, I understand what you are saying about the Epoch, but since the
rpm being removed doesn't meet the dependency (wrong version and/or
wrong epoch) this seems wrong.

I would expect the complaint if I were removing kernel-smp-2.4.21-gg2.

So let's go back to my initial statement.  Help me understand why rpm
is complaining about breaking a dependency which isn't met in the first
place.

thx
/fc