Yum better than RPM?

[alan]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Kam Leo wrote:

> On 3/1/06, alan <alan at clueserver.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Albert A. Modderkolk wrote:
>>
>>> I also get this message when trying to update ImageMagick:
>>>
>>> Resolving Dependencies
>>> --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait.
>>> ---> Package ImageMagick.x86_64 0:6.2.2.0-3.fc4.1 set to be updated
>>> ---> Package ImageMagick.i386 0:6.2.2.0-3.fc4.1 set to be updated
>>> --> Running transaction check
>>> --> Processing Dependency: ImageMagick = 6.2.2.0-3.fc4.0 for package:
>>> ImageMagick-c++
>>> --> Finished Dependency Resolution
>>> Error: Missing Dependency: ImageMagick = 6.2.2.0-3.fc4.0 is needed by
>>> package ImageMagick-c++
>>>
>>> ImageMagick seems to require a backward version... are we back to RPM's
>>> dependency nightmares?  How can I fix this?
>>
>> You are missreading that.  ImageMagick-c++ is what needs the old version.
>> Sound like whoever built ImageMagick-c++ has not rebuilt it for the new
>> version.
>>
>> Yum is there to resolve rpm dependacy problems, but it cannot do so if
>> people do not rebuild packages with hard dependancies in the first place.
>>
>> If package A depends on package Z version 1.0 and package Z gets updated
>> to version 1.1, package A has to be rebuilt so it can be upgraded as well.
>>
>
> There is a newer version of ImageMagick-c++ which matches the other
> two packages being installed. The OP did not download it. Perhaps he
> was not aware of its availability?

If he is using Yum, it should download it as well.  (Assuming it is on one 
of the repositories that Yum is configured for.)

There are a couple of things that could be happening here though.  I 
noticed that he is using an x86_64 build.  In that case you can get some 
weird problems that Yum does not quite handle correctly.

If you tell yum to "yum update  ImageMagick" and it has only one 
architecture of ImageMagick-c++ available, it will give you that warning 
without telling you which architecture it is failing for.  This is due to 
the weird quirk that on that platform you can have both 32 bit and 64 bit 
packages installed at the same time.  (I have an AMD64 laptop.  I see that 
problem every once in a while.  Especially if the i386 packages get 
deprecated or never get added to the x86_64 repository.)

-- 
"George W. Bush -- Bringing back the Sixties one Nixon at a time."