Bacula dependancy of libc5 --whatprovides no clue
reader at newsguy.com
Thu Sep 23 18:20:26 UTC 2004
Michal Jaegermann <michal at harddata.com> writes:
>> > Are you sure that you build that from sources?
>> No not from `source' but as I said from `*.src.rpm.'
> Eh? Could you explain that subtle difference? This is akin to
> saying "No, I did not build that from sources. I used
> 'source.tar.gz' for that." I have to admit that it escapes me
> why differences in packaging are important for you. Would be
> that opposite if you got that as .deb?
Not sure what yor are talking about there...
My response wasn't supposed to be weird or a wise crack or etc.
When you said `>> > Are you sure that you build that from sources?'
I thought you must be asking if I had built it like
Where I might have used some tricky variables or whatever.
I was simply saying I built it with rpmbuild -ba .spec from the
*.src.file so using whatever is in .spec.
Probably should have used the word `rebuilt'
>> Do you think I could just remove that requires...
> I have no idea. I have not a clue why and how it got there.
> If somebody just listed it under 'Requires:' tag and it still
> compiles on FC then yes, you indeed can and should.
It just appears like:
Requires: coreutils, util-linux, libc5, bacula-fd
Any way removing it allows the packages produced to install ok.
I don't really know how to use it yet so not really sure its working.
There is one thing else that strikes me as wrong or odd.
rpmbuild -ba .spec built these:
Subtracting the debug pkg. And all but one installs with no problems.
produces this error:
rpm -Uvh bacula-client-1.34.6-1.i38
error: Failed dependencies:
bacula-client conflicts with bacula-mysql-1.34.6-1
I don't get that, but maybe its because I don't understand how to use
it yet. Maybe the client package is meant to be installed elsewhere.
More information about the test