yum 2.1.13 in updates-testing

[Axel Thimm]

On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 05:00:17PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 16:20:25 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> > > > >   Update: synaptic.i386 0:0.55.3-2 - extras
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > Transaction Check Error:   package apt-0.5.15cnc6-53.4.rhfc3.at (which is newer than apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362) is already installed
> > > > <snip>
> > > > 
> > > > Check the requirements of the synaptic yum wants to update
> > > > check the provides of the apt you currently have installed.
> > > > you have apt from atrpms installed...  you dont have atrpms in the yum
> > > > repository information that you loaded....
> > > > 
> > > > Looks like a packaging conflict from using multiple repositories to
> > > > me.  I don't see how this qualifies as a yum problem considering that
> > > > yum isn't going to downgrade packages as a matter of design.
> > > 
> > > synaptic requires libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0, which is only provided by
> > > apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362 in Phil's configured set of repositories.
> > 
> > What makes you think so?
> 
> Two things make me think that: 1) In the set of enabled repositories, only
> the apt package in "extras" provides 'libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.2'.

You originally mentioned libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0, now it's suddenly
libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.2?

The latest official upstream release has a major of 0. Probably
fedora.us has a development version. Which brings up the old question
of how to ensure proper rpm ordering of in-between releases snapshots.

And BTW what happened to fedora.us' standpoint of avoiding snapshots
like the devil (a good standpoint IMHO)? Not only from a packaging
POV.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20050206/4cf1dd20/attachment.bin