"yum update gcc" runs into libmudflap-devel

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 13:08 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

> > "Common"? Where do those packages come from? I think your point of
> > view is biased and inappropriate. Over the past months, dependency
> > issues caused by third party packages have not been anything like a
> > hot or regular topic. Much more common have been duplicates,
> > interrupted transactions, upgrade path issues, multi-arch
> > install/repo configuration bugs, and real packaging mistakes in the
> > Fedora package collection.
> 
>   against my better judgment, let me expand on the above.  a number of
> the people who responded to my "drive by" post are correct -- there
> was more i could have done to debug that alleged issue.  but that
> fails to address the question i was asking.  should a simple
> 
>   # yum update gcc
> 
> have worked?
> 
>   now, people suggested that there's no way to know what the cause of
> the failure was without knowing what was installed, what wasn't
> installed, what repos i had active, what 3rd-party packages i'd
> already loaded, etc, etc.  and that's entirely correct.  but it misses
> the fundamental point:  should that command have worked?

That's a hard question to answer, it doesn't have an unconditional
answer. It depends on the circumstances in which you try to run it.

If you're still on your messed-up, partly manually upgraded,
somewhere-between-f11-and-f12 machine, then frankly at this point most
bets are off. We can try and help you figure out exactly what it's not
working, but we wouldn't necessarily expect any yum command to run
problem-free at that point.

>   if it should have, then that's my cue to start doing some research,
> and answering some of those questions.  so let's clearly distinguish
> between the two stages of resolving this:
> 
> 1) identify that there *is*, in fact, a problem that should not have
> occurred, after which
> 
> 2) start digging into *why* it occurred, looking for a solution.
> 
>   frankly, it's just as embarrassing to post a long-winded,
> excruciatingly-detailed post, only to have someone point out, very
> concisely, that i did something silly in line 1.  so, i posted the
> command i ran, and the subsequent output.  based simply on that
> output, is there anything worth following up on?  it's a simple
> question.

It may be just as embarrassing for you (really, it shouldn't be,
everyone does dumb stuff all the time), but it's a lot less time
consuming for anyone trying to help you; instead of having to ask
supplementary questions in a multi-post back-and-forth ping-pong, we
have all the information already available in your first post. As Seth
says, if you're asking why something unexpected happened in yum, it is
always a good idea to include (or pastebin, if it's too long) the full
yum output.

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net