On 06/22/2012 03:21 AM, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> How can I tell apper not to check for updates to redhat-lsb? Currently
> the icon indicating updates are ready is on all the time, making it
> useless.

the keyword to add in your repo is "exclude="

man yum.conf for more information (the same options on the command line and the conf
are available in the repo)

--
Never be afraid to laugh at yourself, after all, you could be missing out on the joke
of the century. -- Dame Edna Everage
--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:25:08 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:

> It looks like I need this package. Here's an rpm log:
>
> # rpm --erase --test redhat-lsb-4.0-11.fc17.x86_64 redhat-lsb-4.0-11.fc17.i686
> error: Failed dependencies:
> lsb >= 3.2 is needed by (installed) google-earth-stable-6.0.3.2197-0.x86_64
> lsb >= 3.2 is needed by (installed) google-earth-stable-6.0.3.2197-0.x86_64
>
> and google-earth (despite being proprietary) is one of my favorite
> applications.

Why did you add the x86_64 package to the erase test?
Check the i686 one only!

rpm -e --test redhat-lsb.i686

--
Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.4.3-1.fc17.x86_64
loadavg: 0.39 0.38 0.50
--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 10:45 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:25:08 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
>
> > It looks like I need this package. Here's an rpm log:
> >
> > # rpm --erase --test redhat-lsb-4.0-11.fc17.x86_64 redhat-lsb-4.0-11.fc17.i686
> > error: Failed dependencies:
> > lsb >= 3.2 is needed by (installed) google-earth-stable-6.0.3.2197-0.x86_64
> > lsb >= 3.2 is needed by (installed) google-earth-stable-6.0.3.2197-0.x86_64
> >
> > and google-earth (despite being proprietary) is one of my favorite
> > applications.
>
> Why did you add the x86_64 package to the erase test?
> Check the i686 one only!
>
> rpm -e --test redhat-lsb.i686

Oddly either of the redhat-lsb packages can be removed, but not both:
# rpm -e --test redhat-lsb.i686
# rpm -e --test redhat-lsb.x86_64
# rpm -e --test redhat-lsb.i686 redhat-lsb.x86_64
error: Failed dependencies:
lsb >= 3.2 is needed by (installed) google-earth-stable-6.0.3.2197-0.x86_64
lsb >= 3.2 is needed by (installed) google-earth-stable-6.0.3.2197-0.x86_64

Also, despite being advertised as an x86_64 package, google-earth actually runs in 32 bit mode:
# file /opt/google/earth/free/googleearth-bin
/opt/google/earth/free/googleearth-bin: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV)...

Since I don't understand the situation, I plan to not remove either of
the redhat-lsb modules.

Thanks - jon



--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:55:42 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:

> > rpm -e --test redhat-lsb.i686
>
> Oddly either of the redhat-lsb packages can be removed, but not both:
> # rpm -e --test redhat-lsb.i686
> # rpm -e --test redhat-lsb.x86_64
> # rpm -e --test redhat-lsb.i686 redhat-lsb.x86_64
> error: Failed dependencies:
> lsb >= 3.2 is needed by (installed) google-earth-stable-6.0.3.2197-0.x86_64
> lsb >= 3.2 is needed by (installed) google-earth-stable-6.0.3.2197-0.x86_64
>

"lsb >= 3.2" is a dependency on an arch-independent capability. This
dependency is not specific enough to include an architecture. Either one
of the packages provides this:

# repoquery --whatprovides lsb
redhat-lsb-0:4.0-11.fc17.x86_64
redhat-lsb-0:4.1-4.fc17.x86_64
redhat-lsb-0:4.0-11.fc17.i686

> Also, despite being advertised as an x86_64 package, google-earth actually runs in 32 bit mode:
> # file /opt/google/earth/free/googleearth-bin
> /opt/google/earth/free/googleearth-bin: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV)...
>
> Since I don't understand the situation, I plan to not remove either of
> the redhat-lsb modules.

Fortunately, redhat-lsb contains just a few files as it is more of a meta
package that adds many dependencies to meet the LSB requirements. The few
files in redhat-lsb itself are of limited use and very special. One would
need to examine google-earth in detail to find out whether it wants any
of those files, too, and not just the many dependencies that make an
installation LSB >= 3.2 compliant.

--
Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.4.3-1.fc17.x86_64
loadavg: 0.26 0.42 0.40
--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Greetings,

Apologies, but I'm arriving late to this discussion.

I've just gone through a re-install (F15->F16) and now an upgrade
(F16->F17).


I've encountered the same problem that has been lenghthily discussed. I
also see that it impacts the upgrade of gtk2, cairo, and several other
packages.



Is this situation still awaiting a resolution?

Much thanks,

Max Pyziur
pyz@brama.com
--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:55:28 -0400 (EDT), Max Pyziur wrote:

>
> Greetings,
>
> Apologies, but I'm arriving late to this discussion.
>
> I've just gone through a re-install (F15->F16) and now an upgrade
> (F16->F17).
>
> I've encountered the same problem that has been lenghthily discussed. I
> also see that it impacts the upgrade of gtk2, cairo, and several other
> packages.

It only affects those packages if you don't know about running
"yum --skip-broken update" yet. If you disagree, post the Yum output.

> Is this situation still awaiting a resolution?

You can get a status update by visiting the two tickets that have
been posted related to this.

--
Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.4.3-1.fc17.x86_64
loadavg: 0.81 0.85 0.87
--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

On 6/24/2012 10:17 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:

It only affects those packages if you don't know about running
"yum --skip-broken update" yet. If you disagree, post the Yum output.


--skip-broken doesn't work for the broken redhat-lsb update. I have to
manually exclude the redhat-lsb packages every time I update.

--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

On 06/25/2012 11:14 AM, Brian Mury wrote:

On 6/24/2012 10:17 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:

It only affects those packages if you don't know about running
"yum --skip-broken update" yet. If you disagree, post the Yum output.


--skip-broken doesn't work for the broken redhat-lsb update. I have to
manually exclude the redhat-lsb packages every time I update.


Slightly OT: --skip-broken doesn't work if the signature's wrong, which
is often a problem with rpmfusion. Should it? (I'd expect it to, as
that's a form of broken, but I'm not going to open a bugzilla if my
understanding of it's wrong.)

--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:14:34 -0700, Brian Mury wrote:

> On 6/24/2012 10:17 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > It only affects those packages if you don't know about running
> > "yum --skip-broken update" yet. If you disagree, post the Yum output.
>
> --skip-broken doesn't work for the broken redhat-lsb update. I have to
> manually exclude the redhat-lsb packages every time I update.

Do you mean that --skip-broken fails for *any* "protected multilib versions"
error in general?
--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

Am 25.06.2012 22:06, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:14:34 -0700, Brian Mury wrote:
>
>> On 6/24/2012 10:17 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>> It only affects those packages if you don't know about running
>>> "yum --skip-broken update" yet. If you disagree, post the Yum output.
>>
>> --skip-broken doesn't work for the broken redhat-lsb update. I have to
>> manually exclude the redhat-lsb packages every time I update.
>
> Do you mean that --skip-broken fails for *any* "protected multilib versions"
> error in general?

--skip-broken tends generally to fail on multilib in a way that
it pulls i686 deps if they seem to satisfy deps by version
on a pure x86_64 system as long you do not "exclude=*.i686"

--
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
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org