libgssapi.so.1 is needed by package nfs-utils

[Jim Cornette]

Bob Goodwin wrote:
> Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
>> Bob Goodwin wrote:
>>>> Your experience is not unique. You can a) file a bug report ("a good
>>>> thing"), b) exclude nfs-utils and update the remaining packages, c)
>>>> wait a day or two and hope that it is a repository synchronization
>>>> problem or d) do nothing.
>>>>
>>> No amount of "exclude=anything" seems to help?
>>>
>>> yum update  --exclude=*nfs* --exclude=*xine*
>>>
>>> It looks to me like the only option is "do nothing" and wait?
>>>
>>> --> Running transaction check
>>> --> Processing Dependency: libgssapi.so.1 for package: nfs-utils
>>> --> Processing Dependency: libdirectfb-0.9.so.24 for package: xine-lib
>>> --> Finished Dependency Resolution
>>> Error: Missing Dependency: libdirectfb-0.9.so.24 is needed by package 
>>> xine-lib
>>> Error: Missing Dependency: libgssapi.so.1 is needed by package nfs-utils
>>>
>>
>> I don't know about xine updates, however, for FC-core updates, 
>> excluding both
>> nfs-utils-lib and libgssapi is needed. 
> 
> "Error: Missing Dependency: libdirectfb-0.9.so.24 is needed by package 
> xine-lib
> Error: Missing Dependency: libgssapi.so.1 is needed by package nfs-utils "
> 
> I did yum remove xine without success, finally had to yum remove 
> xine-lib after which
> yum -y upgrade --exclude=nfs-utils* --exclude=libgssapi* allowed the 
> update process to
> run to completion.
> 
> Now to re-install xine ...
> 
> Bob Goodwin
>> NOTE: This nfs-utils problems is known to FC-devel or FC6T1 users from 
>> several weeks ago.
>> I don't know why this problem was not checked before releasing these 
>> updates......
>>
>> See:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196359
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197219
>> and
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2006-June/msg00933.html
>>
> 

There are many threads on the list currently with different subjects. 
They all reference the same problem caused by the rc in the package name.

The naming of the current rpm has an oddity in its name which makes it 
appear newer than the package that is actually newer. Check the below 
posting from the fedora-test-list. If you are running updates-testing, 
the list has much value.

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2006-June/msg00404.html

This one case where the --nodeps option to rpm is used with good reason. :-)

Jim

-- 
In specifications, Murphy's Law supersedes Ohm's.