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

Re: dependencies/conflicts on regular Fedora 10

Antonio Olivares wrote:

--- On Tue, 3/3/09, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt gmail com> wrote:

From: Michael Schwendt <mschwendt gmail com>
Subject: Re: dependencies/conflicts on regular Fedora 10
To: fedora-list redhat com
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 1:49 AM
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:34:15 -0800 (PST), Antonio wrote:

Tried to update Fedora 10 x86_64, but ...

After years of using Fedora, could you *please* analyse
such problems a bit
prior to posting a message that lacks the details?
Do show your "yum repolist". Don't truncate
the Yum output.
Do query the repositories and verify that you see the
latest pkg releases.
Show what package releases are available.
Do query your RPM database for duplicate packages. Clean
up with relevant tools (man package-cleanup).
There has been an upgrade of libkipi and digikam on Feb

fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list redhat com
To unsubscribe:

This should not happen, and hence the post.  Updating again seems to cure it



You are wrong. This is supposed to happen. yum is doing its job protecting you from making mistakes. Furthermore, this OFTEN happens when mirrors are not in sync, which cannot be controlled.

For this very reason, the yum plugin: skip-broken was written.

But as you yourself admitted, trying again later, when either the mirror finished syncing, or you used a different mirror, all worked as you expected.

Therefore, it was your expectation that was unrealistic.

If, after several days of broken dependencies, you should have done as the previous poster suggested and provided help to the maintainers, who may have actually messed up a package. Hey, it does happen.

So how do you tell whether it really is broken? Wait and retry for a day or two.

Good Luck!

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