1:23 p.m.
Hi All,
I noticed I am not succeeding in updating libquicktime:
=====
# yum update
Loaded plugins: allowdowngrade, downloadonly, presto, refresh-packagekit
Existing lock /var/run/yum.pid: another copy is running as pid 16942.
Another app is currently holding the yum lock; waiting for it to exit...
Setting up and reading Presto delta metadata
Setting up Update Process
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package libquicktime.i386 0:1.0.3-3.fc9 set to be updated
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Dependencies Resolved
================================================================================
Package Arch Version Repository
Size
================================================================================
Updating:
libquicktime i386 1.0.3-3.fc9 rpmfusion-free-updates
376 k
Transaction Summary
================================================================================
Install 0 Package(s)
Update 1 Package(s)
Remove 0 Package(s)
Total size: 376 k
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Downloading Packages:
Downloading DeltaRPMs:
Rebuilding rpms from deltarpms
Running rpm_check_debug
Running Transaction Test
Finished Transaction Test
Transaction Check Error:
file /usr/lib/libquicktime.so.0.0.0 from install of
libquicktime-1.0.3-3.fc9.i386 conflicts with file from package
libquicktime0-1.0.2-22.2.fc8.i386
=====
yum repolist
Loaded plugins: allowdowngrade, downloadonly, presto, refresh-packagekit
Setting up and reading Presto delta metadata
repo id repo name status
fedora Fedora 9 - i386 enabled :
9,897
fedora-debuginfo Fedora 9 - i386 - Debug enabled :
3,630
livna Livna for Fedora Core 9 - i386 - Base enabled :
967
livna-testing Livna for Fedora Core 9 - i386 - Testing enabled :
50
rpmfusion-free RPM Fusion for Fedora 9 - Free enabled :
0
rpmfusion-free-updat RPM Fusion for Fedora 9 - Free - Updates enabled :
420
rpmfusion-nonfree RPM Fusion for Fedora 9 - Non-Free enabled :
0
rpmfusion-nonfree-up RPM Fusion for Fedora 9 - Non-Free - Upd enabled :
141
updates Fedora 9 - i386 - Updates enabled :
10
updates-newkey Fedora 9 - i386 - Updates Newkey enabled :
4,612
updates-newkey-debug Fedora 9 - i386 - Updates - Debug Newkey enabled :
1,425
repolist: 21,152
=====
rpm -qai libquicktime\*
Name : libquicktime Relocations: (not relocatable)
Version : 1.0.2 Vendor: ATrpms.net
Release : 22.2.fc8 Build Date: Tue 19 Feb 2008
07:24:27 EST
Install Date: Mon 25 Feb 2008 19:45:05 EST Build Host:
teufli.physik.fu-berlin.de
Group : System Environment/Libraries Source RPM:
libquicktime-1.0.2-22.2.fc8.src.rpm
Size : 423598 License: GPL
Signature : DSA/SHA1, Tue 19 Feb 2008 07:24:33 EST, Key ID
508ce5e666534c2b
Packager : ATrpms <http://ATrpms.net/>
URL : http://libquicktime.sourceforge.net/
Summary : A library for reading and writing quicktime files
Description :
libquicktime is a library for reading and writing quicktime files. It
is based on the quicktime4linux library, with many extensions.
Name : libquicktime0 Relocations: (not relocatable)
Version : 1.0.2 Vendor: ATrpms.net
Release : 22.2.fc8 Build Date: Tue 19 Feb 2008
07:24:27 EST
Install Date: Mon 25 Feb 2008 19:45:04 EST Build Host:
teufli.physik.fu-berlin.de
Group : System Environment/Libraries Source RPM:
libquicktime-1.0.2-22.2.fc8.src.rpm
Size : 594784 License: GPL
Signature : DSA/SHA1, Tue 19 Feb 2008 07:24:33 EST, Key ID
508ce5e666534c2b
Packager : ATrpms <http://ATrpms.net/>
URL : http://libquicktime.sourceforge.net/
Summary : Shared libraries for package libquicktime
Description :
This package provides the shared libraries libquicktime.so.0* for the
package libquicktime.
Shared libraries are required at runtime for software built against
libquicktime.
Keeping shared libraries in a separate package enables their use as
forward/backward compatibility packages.
=====
I know all that info about "don't cross the beams". Is this something we
should provide, obsolete etc when a user has had atrpms and fresh or
livna active ?
[ I expect I can --nodeps the 0 version to resolve it ]
DaveT.
1:29 p.m.
2008/11/4 David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au>:
I know all that info about "don't cross the beams". Is
this something we
should provide, obsolete etc when a user has had atrpms and fresh or livna
active ?
Well, I don't think that we should unless the other repository join RPM Fusion.
I cannot think of a good reason for doing otherwise and it will also
be really time consuming.
Bye,
Andrea.
11:58 a.m.
On 04.11.2008 14:29, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
2008/11/4 David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au>:
> I know all that info about "don't cross the beams". Is this something
we
> should provide, obsolete etc when a user has had atrpms and fresh or livna
> active ?
Well, I don't think that we should unless the other repository join RPM Fusion.
+1
But having a page in the wiki that mentions issues like this (and their
workarounds) and our reasons not to "fix" them IMHO would be a good
idea. Any volunteers?
CU
knurd
3:52 p.m.
2008/11/5 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>:
> Well, I don't think that we should unless the other
repository join RPM
> Fusion.
+1
But having a page in the wiki that mentions issues like this (and their
workarounds) and our reasons not to "fix" them IMHO would be a good idea.
Any volunteers?
I did it. Please review:
http://rpmfusion.org/Configuration
Bye,
Andrea.
5:20 p.m.
On 05.11.2008 16:52, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
2008/11/5 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>:
>> Well, I don't think that we should unless the other repository join RPM
>> Fusion.
> +1
>
> But having a page in the wiki that mentions issues like this (and their
> workarounds) and our reasons not to "fix" them IMHO would be a good idea.
> Any volunteers?
I did it. Please review:
http://rpmfusion.org/Configuration
My 2 cent: I think it's definitely wrong on that page -- it just scares
people there and distracts them from the main point.
Further: Some repos (like the flash-repo) should just work fine with RPM
Fusion, even without yum-priorities. But the page indirectly suggest
that people need to do what written there to get RPM Fusion running
properly. That is doing no good for us.
And what I miss is something like "please tell maintainers from 3rd
party repos to join RPM Fusion, as it's just confusing Fedora users if
they need to enable multiple, repos that might sometimes be incompatible"
Note, I didn't do any changes to the wiki, because above maybe might
just be my option. But if it's fine for everybody I'd remove that and
create something else in a different place.
CU
knurd
6:26 p.m.
2008/11/5 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>:
[...cut...]
Note, I didn't do any changes to the wiki, because above maybe
might just be
my option. But if it's fine for everybody I'd remove that and create
something else in a different place.
It's fine for me.
BTW, there is already a link to other Fedora 3rd party repos where
possibile mixing with rpm fusion is stated, even if, as you say, it is
not explicit.
Bye,
Andrea.
6:54 p.m.
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 05.11.2008 16:52, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
> 2008/11/5 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>:
>>> Well, I don't think that we should unless the other repository join RPM
>>> Fusion.
>> +1
>>
>> But having a page in the wiki that mentions issues like this (and their
>> workarounds) and our reasons not to "fix" them IMHO would be a good
>> idea.
>> Any volunteers?
>
> I did it. Please review:
> http://rpmfusion.org/Configuration
My 2 cent: I think it's definitely wrong on that page -- it just scares
people there and distracts them from the main point.
Further: Some repos (like the flash-repo) should just work fine with RPM
Fusion, even without yum-priorities. But the page indirectly suggest
that people need to do what written there to get RPM Fusion running
properly. That is doing no good for us.
+1, this definitely needs to go to a page of its own.
Regards,
Hans
5661
days inactive
5662
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Agnes Jones -
Andrea Musuruane -
Hans de Goede -
Thorsten Leemhuis