-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

$ sudo yum update firefox
Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit
Setting up Update Process
Resolving Dependencies
- --> Running transaction check
- ---> Package firefox.i386 0:3.0.1-1.fc9 set to be updated
- --> Processing Dependency: gecko-libs = 1.9.0.1 for package: firefox
- --> Running transaction check
- ---> Package xulrunner.i386 0:1.9.0.1-1.fc9 set to be updated
- --> Processing Dependency: gecko-libs = 1.9 for package: nspluginwrapper
- --> Processing Dependency: gecko-libs = 1.9 for package:
gnome-python2-gtkmozembed
- --> Processing Dependency: gecko-libs = 1.9 for package: yelp
- --> Running transaction check
- ---> Package yelp.i386 0:2.22.1-4.fc9 set to be updated
- --> Processing Dependency: gecko-libs = 1.9 for package: nspluginwrapper
- --> Processing Dependency: gecko-libs = 1.9 for package:
gnome-python2-gtkmozembed
- --> Finished Dependency Resolution
nspluginwrapper-1.1.0-2.fc9.i386 from installed has depsolving problems
~ --> Missing Dependency: gecko-libs = 1.9 is needed by package
nspluginwrapper-1.1.0-2.fc9.i386 (installed)
gnome-python2-gtkmozembed-2.19.1-16.fc9.i386 from installed has
depsolving problems
~ --> Missing Dependency: gecko-libs = 1.9 is needed by package
gnome-python2-gtkmozembed-2.19.1-16.fc9.i386 (installed)
Error: Missing Dependency: gecko-libs = 1.9 is needed by package
gnome-python2-gtkmozembed-2.19.1-16.fc9.i386 (installed)
Error: Missing Dependency: gecko-libs = 1.9 is needed by package
nspluginwrapper-1.1.0-2.fc9.i386 (installed)

- --

~ Steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkiBIaIACgkQeERILVgMyvCrKQCeJyUqwEfakE aDSUzx8jmtyXkY
zJsAn1TuR0hbhAUNV+VUIHyr8U2pAKEF
=SqSE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Steven Stern wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

$ sudo yum update firefox
Error: Missing Dependency: gecko-libs = 1.9 is needed by package
nspluginwrapper-1.1.0-2.fc9.i386 (installed)


The problem here is that in rushing out the security fix for Firefox,
nspluginwrapper was not rebuild and still requires the older version of
gecko-lib. This is now a known issue and is being fixed.


Rahul

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 07:13 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Steven Stern wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > $ sudo yum update firefox
> > Error: Missing Dependency: gecko-libs = 1.9 is needed by package
> > nspluginwrapper-1.1.0-2.fc9.i386 (installed)
>
> The problem here is that in rushing out the security fix for Firefox,
> nspluginwrapper was not rebuild and still requires the older version of
> gecko-lib. This is now a known issue and is being fixed.

Will this also fix a similar update problem on x86_64 systems? An
extract from a yum log follows. The update process is bringing in
xulrunner-1.9-0.60.beta5.fc9.i386.rpm
(why?) even though a more recent version
xulrunner-1.9.0.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm
exists on at least some repositories. A complete log of the update is
attached.

...
Installing for dependencies:
libbonobo i386 2.22.0-2.fc9 fedora 475 k
libgnome i386 2.22.0-3.fc9 fedora 977 k
xulrunner i386 1.9-0.60.beta5.fc9 fedora 8.9 M
...
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 21:09:02 -0700,
Jonathan Ryshpan <jonrysh@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 07:13 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Steven Stern wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > $ sudo yum update firefox
> > > Error: Missing Dependency: gecko-libs = 1.9 is needed by package
> > > nspluginwrapper-1.1.0-2.fc9.i386 (installed)
> >
> > The problem here is that in rushing out the security fix for Firefox,
> > nspluginwrapper was not rebuild and still requires the older version of
> > gecko-lib. This is now a known issue and is being fixed.
>
> Will this also fix a similar update problem on x86_64 systems? An
> extract from a yum log follows. The update process is bringing in
> xulrunner-1.9-0.60.beta5.fc9.i386.rpm
> (why?) even though a more recent version
> xulrunner-1.9.0.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm
> exists on at least some repositories. A complete log of the update is
> attached.

I am still seeing that problem as of this morning. It looks like the updated
rpm is in the repo, but the metadata for x86_64 doesn't refer to it.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 15:14 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > Will this also fix a similar update problem on x86_64 systems? An
> > extract from a yum log follows. The update process is bringing in
> > xulrunner-1.9-0.60.beta5.fc9.i386.rpm
> > (why?) even though a more recent version
> > xulrunner-1.9.0.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm
> > exists on at least some repositories. A complete log of the update
> > is attached.
>
> I am still seeing that problem as of this morning. It looks like the
> updated rpm is in the repo, but the metadata for x86_64 doesn't refer
> to it.

Most likely so.

I've seen a lot of version/dependency problems in the Fedora repos, at
least those for the x86_64 architecture. See my recent postings to this
list.

Thanks - jon

>

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:

On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 15:14 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:

Will this also fix a similar update problem on x86_64 systems? An
extract from a yum log follows. The update process is bringing in
xulrunner-1.9-0.60.beta5.fc9.i386.rpm
(why?) even though a more recent version
xulrunner-1.9.0.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm

exists on at least some repositories. A complete log of the update
is attached.

I am still seeing that problem as of this morning. It looks like the
updated rpm is in the repo, but the metadata for x86_64 doesn't refer
to it.


Most likely so.

I've seen a lot of version/dependency problems in the Fedora repos, at
least those for the x86_64 architecture. See my recent postings to this
list.


I was able to update early this afternoon. In the process, the new
nspluginwrapper.i386 seems to have 4 new .i386 dependencies: libcurl,
libidn, nss, and sqlite. Other than that, I was able to update to the
new firefox 3.0.1.


Then again, I waited until they fixed things before updating: firefox,
epiphany, xulrunner, and yelp. With the working update came updates for
cpio, system-config-language, and totem.



Thanks - jon


--
Kevin J. Cummings
kjchome@rcn.com
cummings@kjchome.homeip.net
cummings@kjc386.framingham.ma.us
Registered Linux User #1232 (http://counter.li.org)

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Bruno Wolff III wrote:

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 21:09:02 -0700,
Jonathan Ryshpan <jonrysh@pacbell.net> wrote:


On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 07:13 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:


Steven Stern wrote:


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

$ sudo yum update firefox
Error: Missing Dependency: gecko-libs = 1.9 is needed by package
nspluginwrapper-1.1.0-2.fc9.i386 (installed)

The problem here is that in rushing out the security fix for Firefox,
nspluginwrapper was not rebuild and still requires the older version of
gecko-lib. This is now a known issue and is being fixed.


Will this also fix a similar update problem on x86_64 systems? An
extract from a yum log follows. The update process is bringing in
xulrunner-1.9-0.60.beta5.fc9.i386.rpm
(why?) even though a more recent version
xulrunner-1.9.0.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm

exists on at least some repositories. A complete log of the update is
attached.



I am still seeing that problem as of this morning. It looks like the updated
rpm is in the repo, but the metadata for x86_64 doesn't refer to it.


Is there any way to work around the update problem with
xulrunner-1.9-0.beta5?? As of a few minutes ago I'm still hitting
against this dependency problem.


error I'm getting:
Transaction Check Error:
package xulrunner-1.9-1.fc9.x86_64 (which is newer than
xulrunner-1.9-0.60.beta5.fc9.i386) is already installed



Thanks...Jeff

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 11:07 -0400, Jeffrey Ross wrote:
>
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 21:09:02 -0700,
> > Jonathan Ryshpan <jonrysh@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 07:13 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>
> >>> Steven Stern wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >>>> Hash: SHA1
> >>>>
> >>>> $ sudo yum update firefox
> >>>> Error: Missing Dependency: gecko-libs = 1.9 is needed by package
> >>>> nspluginwrapper-1.1.0-2.fc9.i386 (installed)
> >>>>
> >>> The problem here is that in rushing out the security fix for Firefox,
> >>> nspluginwrapper was not rebuild and still requires the older version of
> >>> gecko-lib. This is now a known issue and is being fixed.
> >>>
> >> Will this also fix a similar update problem on x86_64 systems? An
> >> extract from a yum log follows. The update process is bringing in
> >> xulrunner-1.9-0.60.beta5.fc9.i386.rpm
> >> (why?) even though a more recent version
> >> xulrunner-1.9.0.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm
> >> exists on at least some repositories. A complete log of the update is
> >> attached.
> >>
> >
> > I am still seeing that problem as of this morning. It looks like the updated
> > rpm is in the repo, but the metadata for x86_64 doesn't refer to it.
> >
> >
> Is there any way to work around the update problem with
> xulrunner-1.9-0.beta5?? As of a few minutes ago I'm still hitting
> against this dependency problem.
>
> error I'm getting:
> Transaction Check Error:
> package xulrunner-1.9-1.fc9.x86_64 (which is newer than
> xulrunner-1.9-0.60.beta5.fc9.i386) is already installed

I wound up removing xulrunner and its dependant packages, updating FF,
then reinstalling what extra stuff had been removed. It worked. Since
you probably have most of it in your yum cache it's not too burdensome.

poc

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 11:07 -0400, Jeffrey Ross wrote:
>
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 21:09:02 -0700,
> > Jonathan Ryshpan <jonrysh@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Will this also fix a similar update problem on x86_64 systems? An
> >> extract from a yum log follows. The update process is bringing in
> >> xulrunner-1.9-0.60.beta5.fc9.i386.rpm
> >> (why?) even though a more recent version
> >> xulrunner-1.9.0.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm
> >> exists on at least some repositories. A complete log of the update is
> >> attached.
> >
> > I am still seeing that problem as of this morning. It looks like the updated
> > rpm is in the repo, but the metadata for x86_64 doesn't refer to it.
> >
> Is there any way to work around the update problem with
> xulrunner-1.9-0.beta5?? As of a few minutes ago I'm still hitting
> against this dependency problem.

I haven't found one. I tried downloading
xulrunner-1.9.0.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm
and installing it using
rpm --install --nodeps xulrunner-1.9.0.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm
only to find further difficulties when upgrading the rest of the system
using yum. Unfortunately I didn't keep a record of what the
difficulties were.

jon

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Hello!

I'm also stuck in this and get a lot of new dependency problems for i386 on my X86_64 FC9. I don't understand if I suddenly need all these i386 packages now or if that is what's broken? I do remember having to install some i386 to get flash going.

Is this going to be fixed or do I need to reinstall firefox and start over?

Best, Micko

================================================== ===========================
Package Arch Version Repository Size
================================================== ===========================
Updating:
devhelp x86_64 0.19.1-3.fc9 updates 227 k
firefox x86_64 3.0.1-1.fc9 updates 9.3 M
xulrunner x86_64 1.9.0.1-1.fc9 updates 8.7 M
xulrunner-devel x86_64 1.9.0.1-1.fc9 updates 3.4 M
yelp x86_64 2.22.1-4.fc9 updates 876 k
Installing for dependencies:
GConf2 i386 2.22.0-1.fc9 fedora 1.6 M
ORBit2 i386 2.14.12-3.fc9 fedora 183 k
avahi i386 0.6.22-10.fc9 fedora 245 k
avahi-glib i386 0.6.22-10.fc9 fedora 17 k
bzip2-libs i386 1.0.5-2.fc9 updates 38 k
dbus-glib i386 0.74-8.fc9 updates 165 k
gnome-vfs2 i386 2.22.0-1.fc9 fedora 1.1 M
hal-libs i386 0.5.11-2.fc9 updates 65 k
libIDL i386 0.8.10-2.fc9 fedora 88 k
libacl i386 2.2.47-1.fc9 fedora 22 k
libattr i386 2.4.41-1.fc9 fedora 13 k
libbonobo i386 2.22.0-2.fc9 fedora 475 k
libdaemon i386 0.12-3.fc9 fedora 26 k
libgnome i386 2.22.0-3.fc9 fedora 977 k
xulrunner i386 1.9-0.60.beta5.fc9 fedora 8.9 M

Transaction Summary
================================================== ===========================
Install 15 Package(s)
Update 5 Package(s)
Remove 0 Package(s)
Transaction Check Error:
package xulrunner-1.9-1.fc9.x86_64 (which is newer than xulrunner-1.9-0.60.beta5.fc9.i386) is already installed

Error Summary
-------------


--
This is an email sent via The Fedora Community Portal https://fcp.surfsite.org
https://fcp.surfsite.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=278434&topic_id=59478&forum= 10#forumpost278434
If you think, this is spam, please report this to webmaster@fcp.surfsite.org and/or blame micko@bag.org.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list