FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-07-2011, 03:53 AM
JD
 
Default F14 yum update conflict

# rpm -e libmad0-0.15.1b-4.fc14.i686
error: Failed dependencies:
libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed) xine-lib-1.1.19-22.1.fc14.i686
libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed)
mplayer-4:1.0-81_snap20110324.fc14.i686
libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed) vlc-1.1.8-68.1.fc14.i686
libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed)
gpac-libs-0.4.6-0.11.cvs20100527.fc14.i686
libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed)
gstreamer-plugins-ugly-0.10.17-13.fc14.i686
libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed)
k3b-extras-freeworld-1:2.0.1-2.fc14.i686
libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed) streamripper-1.64.6-1.fc11.i586
libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed) xmms2-mad-0.7-1.fc14.i686
libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed) normalize-0.7.7-5.fc11.i586
libmad0 = 0.15.1b-4.fc14 is needed by (installed)
libmad-0.15.1b-4.fc14.i686
# rpm -e libvcdinfo0
error: Failed dependencies:
libvcdinfo.so.0 is needed by (installed) xine-lib-1.1.19-22.1.fc14.i686
libvcdinfo.so.0 is needed by (installed) vlc-1.1.8-68.1.fc14.i686
libvcdinfo.so.0 is needed by (installed) vcdimager-0.7.23-9.fc14.i686
libvcdinfo.so.0(VCDINFO_0) is needed by (installed)
xine-lib-1.1.19-22.1.fc14.i686
libvcdinfo.so.0(VCDINFO_0) is needed by (installed)
vlc-1.1.8-68.1.fc14.i686
libvcdinfo.so.0(VCDINFO_0) is needed by (installed)
vcdimager-0.7.23-9.fc14.i686
libvcdinfo0 = 0.7.23-9.fc14 is needed by (installed)
vcdimager-0.7.23-9.fc14.i686

OK - I wanted to show that so you can see that there are packages
I want (from rpmfusion and from atrpms). Some of these packages
have no F14 release version yet, so F13 pkgs are still included in
the F14 repos.

Reason why I show this is because when I ran yum update, I got:
.
.
.
.
.
Total 635 kB/s | 33 MB 00:52
Running rpm_check_debug
Running Transaction Test

*
Transaction Check Error:
file /usr/lib/libmad.so.0.2.1 from install of
libmad-0.15.1b-13.fc12.i586 conflicts with file from package
libmad0-0.15.1b-4.fc14.i686
file /usr/lib/libvcdinfo.so.0.2.0 from install of
vcdimager-libs-0.7.23-13.fc13.1.i686 conflicts with file from package
**libvcdinfo0**-0.7.23-9.fc14.i686*

So, how can we install what we would like to run, when some packages
depend on an older version of package A from Repository X,
and some packages depend on a newer version of A from Repository Y?
What's more is that the packages we want are not all available
from the same repo.

I think this problem needs to be addressed by the Fedora rpm packagers,
or at least, a good amount of coordination is needed amongst all
the fedora rpm repo creators.



--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 04-07-2011, 03:44 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default F14 yum update conflict

On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:53:15 -0700, JD wrote:

> # rpm -e libmad0-0.15.1b-4.fc14.i686
> error: Failed dependencies:
> libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed) xine-lib-1.1.19-22.1.fc14.i686
> libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed)
> mplayer-4:1.0-81_snap20110324.fc14.i686
> libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed) vlc-1.1.8-68.1.fc14.i686
> libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed)
> gpac-libs-0.4.6-0.11.cvs20100527.fc14.i686
> libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed)
> gstreamer-plugins-ugly-0.10.17-13.fc14.i686
> libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed)
> k3b-extras-freeworld-1:2.0.1-2.fc14.i686
> libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed) streamripper-1.64.6-1.fc11.i586
> libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed) xmms2-mad-0.7-1.fc14.i686
> libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed) normalize-0.7.7-5.fc11.i586
> libmad0 = 0.15.1b-4.fc14 is needed by (installed)
> libmad-0.15.1b-4.fc14.i686
> # rpm -e libvcdinfo0
> error: Failed dependencies:
> libvcdinfo.so.0 is needed by (installed) xine-lib-1.1.19-22.1.fc14.i686
> libvcdinfo.so.0 is needed by (installed) vlc-1.1.8-68.1.fc14.i686
> libvcdinfo.so.0 is needed by (installed) vcdimager-0.7.23-9.fc14.i686
> libvcdinfo.so.0(VCDINFO_0) is needed by (installed)
> xine-lib-1.1.19-22.1.fc14.i686
> libvcdinfo.so.0(VCDINFO_0) is needed by (installed)
> vlc-1.1.8-68.1.fc14.i686
> libvcdinfo.so.0(VCDINFO_0) is needed by (installed)
> vcdimager-0.7.23-9.fc14.i686
> libvcdinfo0 = 0.7.23-9.fc14 is needed by (installed)
> vcdimager-0.7.23-9.fc14.i686
>
> OK - I wanted to show that so you can see that there are packages
> I want (from rpmfusion and from atrpms). Some of these packages
> have no F14 release version yet, so F13 pkgs are still included in
> the F14 repos.
>
> Reason why I show this is because when I ran yum update, I got:
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> Total 635 kB/s | 33 MB 00:52
> Running rpm_check_debug
> Running Transaction Test
>
> *
> Transaction Check Error:
> file /usr/lib/libmad.so.0.2.1 from install of
> libmad-0.15.1b-13.fc12.i586 conflicts with file from package
> libmad0-0.15.1b-4.fc14.i686
> file /usr/lib/libvcdinfo.so.0.2.0 from install of
> vcdimager-libs-0.7.23-13.fc13.1.i686 conflicts with file from package
> **libvcdinfo0**-0.7.23-9.fc14.i686*
>
> So, how can we install what we would like to run, when some packages
> depend on an older version of package A from Repository X,
> and some packages depend on a newer version of A from Repository Y?
> What's more is that the packages we want are not all available
> from the same repo.
>
> I think this problem needs to be addressed by the Fedora rpm packagers,
> or at least, a good amount of coordination is needed amongst all
> the fedora rpm repo creators.

This problem space is old and well-known. You've found two 3rd party
repos, which offer the same MAD library in packages that conflict
with eachother. It's best to report the problem to both repo
maintainers and hope that they will agree on a fix.

It seems you can "rpm -e libmad" (for libmad-0.15.1b-4.fc14 only!) and
remove it, because it is just a meta package that contains documentation
and pulls in libmad0 (atrpms). Keep libmad0, which provides the shared
library. Then rpmfusion's libmad (which also provides the shared lib)
doesn't try to update atrpms' libmad. I haven't had a look at libvcdinfo.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 04-07-2011, 05:54 PM
JD
 
Default F14 yum update conflict

On 04/07/2011 08:44 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> rpm -e libmad
Tried. It breaks several apps.

How can contact the Fedora Repo , The ATRPMS Repo and RPMFusion rep
mintainers
to ask them why in tarnation hey screw up fedora users' installations in
this way?

They offer rpms for apps the main fedora repo does not provide, but
link them with libraries and packages with a slightly different
build and version number than what Fedora Repo DOES provide, thus
breaking the dependency chain.

I was hoping that Redhat would lower the boom and tell these repo
maintainers that they cannot name their package names with the
fc14 (or in general fcN), if they break Redhat's fcN releases
dependency chains, and should not duplicate libraries in /lib and
/usr/lib, which Redhat Fedora already provides.

This would be similar to distros that change the names of their
packages, even though they are spin-off's of RHEL5 or RHEL6;
such as CENTOS and Scientific Linux... This way, users would
not be "baited" into installing such packages.

What does the community think of this approach?

Cheers,

JD
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 04-07-2011, 06:10 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default F14 yum update conflict

On 04/07/2011 11:24 PM, JD wrote:
> They offer rpms for apps the main fedora repo does not provide, but
> link them with libraries and packages with a slightly different
> build and version number than what Fedora Repo DOES provide, thus
> breaking the dependency chain.

It is unlikely that RPM Fusion would do that. Most maintainers in that
repo are Fedora maintainers. So is the atrpms maintainer for that
matter. You should just not mix conflicting third party repositories.
Either use one or the other and cherry pick carefully if you must.

> I was hoping that Redhat would lower the boom and tell these repo
> maintainers that they cannot name their package names with the
> fc14 (or in general fcN), if they break Redhat's fcN releases
> dependency chains, and should not duplicate libraries in /lib and
> /usr/lib, which Redhat Fedora already provides.

There are no trademarks over a name like "fc" that Red Hat holds. These
packages don't have "Fedora" or "Red Hat' in their names and even if
they would, trying to claim trademark rights over package names would
be overreaching. I don't think a legal hammer is the solution to this
problem

Rahul
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 04-07-2011, 06:45 PM
JD
 
Default F14 yum update conflict

On 04/07/2011 11:10 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 04/07/2011 11:24 PM, JD wrote:
>> They offer rpms for apps the main fedora repo does not provide, but
>> link them with libraries and packages with a slightly different
>> build and version number than what Fedora Repo DOES provide, thus
>> breaking the dependency chain.
> It is unlikely that RPM Fusion would do that. Most maintainers in that
> repo are Fedora maintainers. So is the atrpms maintainer for that
> matter. You should just not mix conflicting third party repositories.
> Either use one or the other and cherry pick carefully if you must.
>
Problem is that Neither the Redhat Fedora repos, nor the other
two non-redhat fedora repos carry the same wanted apps. So
your suggestion is not feasible for people that want to use
mplayer or vlc, to name just two of the very many apps.

>> I was hoping that Redhat would lower the boom and tell these repo
>> maintainers that they cannot name their package names with the
>> fc14 (or in general fcN), if they break Redhat's fcN releases
>> dependency chains, and should not duplicate libraries in /lib and
>> /usr/lib, which Redhat Fedora already provides.
> There are no trademarks over a name like "fc" that Red Hat holds. These
> packages don't have "Fedora" or "Red Hat' in their names and even if
> they would, trying to claim trademark rights over package names would
> be overreaching. I don't think a legal hammer is the solution to this
> problem
Legal or not, the three ought to coordinate not to clobber each other's
dependency chains, and version numbers, so that fedora users are
not cornered into the conundrum I and many other fedora users
find themselves. I think RH has plenty of clout to bring about such
coordination without having to resort to any legalese.

I would further suggest that redhat Fedora repo adopt the apps
that the other two repos provide, and build them within the confines
of the the RH fedora repo to eliminate this problem.

Cheers,

JD

> Rahul

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 04-07-2011, 07:03 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default F14 yum update conflict

On 04/08/2011 12:15 AM, JD wrote:
> Problem is that Neither the Redhat Fedora repos, nor the other
> two non-redhat fedora repos carry the same wanted apps. So
> your suggestion is not feasible for people that want to use
> mplayer or vlc, to name just two of the very many apps.

So stick to one third party repo instead of atleast stop using
conflicting repos. Mplayer and vlc are both in RPM Fusion.

> Legal or not, the three ought to coordinate not to clobber each other's
> dependency chains, and version numbers, so that fedora users are
> not cornered into the conundrum I and many other fedora users
> find themselves. I think RH has plenty of clout to bring about such
> coordination without having to resort to any legalese.

Red Hat cannot assume that role since these repos carry software that
Red Hat cannot endorse in anyway. nor is it interested in it. Fedora
is not a commercial product and majority of software packages are
maintained by volunteers, be it in the Fedora or thirdy party ones. If
you find conflicts, it is just another bug to be reported.

Rahul
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 04-07-2011, 07:09 PM
Joe Zeff
 
Default F14 yum update conflict

On 04/07/2011 11:45 AM, JD wrote:
> I would further suggest that redhat Fedora repo adopt the apps
> that the other two repos provide, and build them within the confines
> of the the RH fedora repo to eliminate this problem.

Fedora is committed to having nothing in its official repos that has (or
could have) patent issues. They even took the autocorrect function out
of OpenOffice because there's a patent involved even though the patent
owner hasn't complained. One of the reasons apps end up in the
third-party repos is because they do have patent issues and aren't
eligible for the official ones. Under the circumstances, your
suggestion, although good in theory, isn't practical.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 04-07-2011, 07:38 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default F14 yum update conflict

On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:54:27 -0700, JD wrote:

> > rpm -e libmad
> Tried. It breaks several apps.

I don't believe that. What does it break? The package doesn't contain
anything important except virtual "Provides":

http://packages.atrpms.net/dist/f14/libmad/

$ rpmls -p libmad-0.15.1b-4.fc14.i686.rpm
drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/libmad-0.15.1b
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/libmad-0.15.1b/CHANGES
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/libmad-0.15.1b/COPYING
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/libmad-0.15.1b/COPYRIGHT
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/libmad-0.15.1b/CREDITS
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/libmad-0.15.1b/README
-rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/libmad-0.15.1b/TODO

$ rpm -qp --provides libmad-0.15.1b-4.fc14.i686.rpm
mad = 0.15.1b-4.fc14
libmad = 0.15.1b-4.fc14
libmad(x86-32) = 0.15.1b-4.fc14
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 04-07-2011, 08:00 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default F14 yum update conflict

On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:33:19 +0530, Rahul wrote:

> So stick to one third party repo instead of atleast stop using
> conflicting repos. Mplayer and vlc are both in RPM Fusion.

It seems the failure is to enable rpmfusion _after_ atrpms.

Plus, it's a mistake to install atrpms' "libmad" explicitly instead of
letting Yum (or other depsolvers) pull in whatever provides the
libmad.so.0 library. At atrpms' it's the "libmad0" package.

If one starts with rpmfusion, one gets libmad-0.15.1b-13.fc12, and
atrpms' libmad-0.15.1b-4.fc14 loses version comparison: 4 < 13

[On the contrary, if one starts with atrpms, dependencies on libmad.so.0
pull in the "libmad0" package, which conflicts with rpmfusion's libmad
pkg. atrpms' libmad package contains no important library.]

At rpmfusion, nothing requires the "libmad" package name:

$ repoquery --exactdeps --whatrequires libmad
libmad-0:0.15.1b-13.fc12.i586
libmad-devel-0:0.15.1b-13.fc12.i586

So, if nothing at atrpms explicitly requires "libmad0" either, one can
stick to rpmfusion's libmad package without ever getting atrpms' libmad0
package. Anything that wants libmad.so.0 will be happy with whatever
provides that library.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 04-08-2011, 04:36 AM
JD
 
Default F14 yum update conflict

On 04/07/2011 01:00 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 00:33:19 +0530, Rahul wrote:
>
>> So stick to one third party repo instead of atleast stop using
>> conflicting repos. Mplayer and vlc are both in RPM Fusion.
> It seems the failure is to enable rpmfusion _after_ atrpms.
>
> Plus, it's a mistake to install atrpms' "libmad" explicitly instead of
> letting Yum (or other depsolvers) pull in whatever provides the
> libmad.so.0 library. At atrpms' it's the "libmad0" package.
>
> If one starts with rpmfusion, one gets libmad-0.15.1b-13.fc12, and
> atrpms' libmad-0.15.1b-4.fc14 loses version comparison: 4< 13
>
> [On the contrary, if one starts with atrpms, dependencies on libmad.so.0
> pull in the "libmad0" package, which conflicts with rpmfusion's libmad
> pkg. atrpms' libmad package contains no important library.]
>
> At rpmfusion, nothing requires the "libmad" package name:
>
> $ repoquery --exactdeps --whatrequires libmad
> libmad-0:0.15.1b-13.fc12.i586
> libmad-devel-0:0.15.1b-13.fc12.i586
>
> So, if nothing at atrpms explicitly requires "libmad0" either, one can
> stick to rpmfusion's libmad package without ever getting atrpms' libmad0
> package. Anything that wants libmad.so.0 will be happy with whatever
> provides that library.
What you say does not make sense re libmad0. To wit:

# rpm -q libmad0
libmad0-0.15.1b-4.fc14.i686
# rpm -e libmad0-0.15.1b-4.fc14.i686
error: Failed dependencies:
libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed) vlc-1.1.8-68.1.fc14.i686
libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed)
mplayer-4:1.0-81_snap20110324.fc14.i686
libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed) normalize-0.7.7-5.fc11.i586
libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed)
gpac-libs-0.4.6-0.11.cvs20100527.fc14.i686
libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed)
gstreamer-plugins-ugly-0.10.17-13.fc14.i686
libmad.so.0 is needed by (installed) xmms2-mad-0.7-1.fc14.i686

I did not manually and explicitly install libmad0.
Yum resolved the dependencies of the packages you see above.


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:09 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org