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

Re: fc7 i386, yum and explicit dependencies

On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 23:10 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 22:59 +0200, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> > Hi all... I must be missing something obvious or I have not noticed this
> > behavior before...
> > 
> > I'm in the process of building a bunch of packages for fedora 7 and
> > tried installing them on a brand new i386 install through a meta package
> > (ie: a package that only contains explicit dependencies using Requires:
> > and installs all required packages as a side effect). There _are_
> > packages missing but yum happily goes ahead and installs the meta
> > package and the dependencies it can find, and ignores the missing
> > dependencies! Is this expected behavior??
> > 
> > A "package-cleanup --problems" does show the missing dependencies. How
> > can yum install something which does not have its dependencies met? It
> > seems to me like a very very basic bug in yum...
> Does this happen in CLi or in the gui frontend? 

This is happening with a plain simple command line yum invocation... 
  yum install package_name
That's it...

> I installed several
> packages throught the gui short after the install and it missed even
> deps that were in the repos. However, recently I attempted to do "yum
> update", which failed due to firefox, so I did "yum --exclude=firefox
> update", which again failed, because some packages that wanted update
> needed newer firefox. What was however my shock, when I did "yum
> --exclude firefox update": it updated all packages that had deps on
> newer firefox, and updated firefox-devel. That broke my epiphany, as it
> was updated against newer firefox, whilst epiphany-extensions was still
> for older one and installed firefox was the older one. Luckily I fixed
> it by running "yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update firefox" which
> updated all the rest of packages depending on old firefox and firefox
> itself.
> I too wonder whether this behaviour is expected, or whether is it a bug.

Sounds like a bug to me...
-- Fernando

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