today's yum dependency issues for rawhide

[Kevin Martin]

On 07/11/2012 01:18 PM, Sandro Mani wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Kevin Martin <ktmdms at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 07/11/2012 11:42 AM, Sandro Mani wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno at wolff.to> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:12:31 -0500,
>>>>   Kevin Martin <ktmdms at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Two questions:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1). How do I get rid of the dependency issues shown below?  Do I force the
>>>>> update of systemd-libs or do the packages that are
>>>>> dependent on libudev need to be updated?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I like to keep the latest versions of rawhide packages installed unless it
>>>> would require removing something really critical. The way I do a quick check
>>>> for what is blocking updates is to run:
>>>> yum update -y -v | grep -i fail
>>>> Note that sometimes early failures cause later failures so that you really
>>>> don't need to remove every package listed. There can also be failures that
>>>> don't show up when doing the above.
>>>>
>>>> My fallback plan is to remove the packages that won't update.
>>>>
>>>> I track all of the packages I remove and regularly try reinstalling them.
>>>> --
>>> Why not just rebuild them in the meantime? I usually simply bump the
>>> version by one additional "sub-version" (i.e.
>>> vlc-core-2.0.1-1.fc18.x86_64 -> vlc-core-2.0.1-1.1.fc18.x86_64),
>>> rebuild with mock, and that's it.
>>>
>> The funny thing is that while vlc is *one* of the packages that has libudev dependencies there are a whole bunch more non-rpmfusion
>> packages that have libudev dependencies as well:
>>
> [...]
> Yeah, but vlc wants libudev.so.0()(64bit), the other ones libudev.so.1()(64bit).
> 
Please explain why that makes any difference in this discussion.  I'm not sure I see the relevance; vlc want's the 0 version, the
others want the 1 version, so what?

Kevin