On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:16:27 +0100, Tim wrote:
> On 21.02.2010 02:15, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Just for kicks, the current
> >
> > ==
> > Broken packages in fedora-updates-12-x86_64:
> >
> > player-3.0.1-3.fc12.x86_64 re
On 21.02.2010 02:15, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Just for kicks, the current
>
> ==
> Broken packages in fedora-updates-12-x86_64:
>
> player-3.0.1-3.fc12.x86_64 requires libml.so.2()(64bit)
> player-3.0.1-3.fc12.x86_64
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:26:22 +0100, Christian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 02/21/2010 02:15 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >Upgrade from 12+updates to 13+updates+testing
> > ==
> [...]
> > Broken packages in fedora-12-x86_64:
> >
>
Hi,
On 02/21/2010 02:15 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>Upgrade from 12+updates to 13+updates+testing
> ==
[...]
> Broken packages in fedora-12-x86_64:
>
> monodevelop-debugger-mdb-2.1.0-1.fc12.i686 requires
> mono(Mon
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:59:17 +0100, Christian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 02/21/2010 02:15 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >Upgrade from 12+updates to 13+updates+testing
> > ==
> > Broken packages in fedora-updates-12-i386:
> >
Hi,
On 02/21/2010 02:15 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>Upgrade from 12+updates to 13+updates+testing
> ==
> Broken packages in fedora-updates-12-i386:
> mono-moonlight-2.4.3.1-1.fc12.i686 requires mono-core = 0:2.4.3.1-
On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 15:21 -0500, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> I can do this; but I don't understand why the existence of
> libopenvrml-devel and its "Obsoletes: openvrml-devel" aren't sufficient.
This isn't the reason, but as a general note, unversioned obsoletes are
almost always a bad idea, as th
On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 04:16 +, Leigh Scott wrote:
> avant-window-navigator doesn't have broken deps, this error occurred
> because the F12 package had a higher release version.
> Perhaps yum should deal with this better i.e take dist tag into account
It does take it into account, exactly as i
On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 02:15 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> linuxwacom
Should be fixed in xorg-x11-drv-wacom-0.10.4-4.fc13 .
- ajax
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailm
On 02/20/2010 08:15 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Just for kicks, the current
>
>Upgrade from 12+updates to 13+updates+testing
>
> broken deps look like below. While several may be due to dead packages
> that have been removed in 13, some are likely due to violated upgrade
> paths and bad/
On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 21:38 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
[snip]
> See above. Part of the current multiarch repo compose strategy is to pull
> in all -devel packages and their dependency chains. Initially, you've had
> openvrml-devel.i686 add openvrml.i686 in the F-12 x86_64 repo. Then you've
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:21:22 -0500, Braden wrote:
> Then I still don't understand this. openvrml-devel went away between
> F12 and F12-updates.
Then you've broken F12, too, ... but it doesn't result in broken deps yet
because the SONAME deps of the builds haven't changed. Unlike F13.
As soon as
On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 19:43 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:46:14 -0500, Braden wrote:
>
> > >Upgrade from 12+updates to 13+updates+testing
>
> > > broken deps look like below. While several may be due to dead packages
> > > that have been removed in 13, some are l
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:46:14 -0500, Braden wrote:
> >Upgrade from 12+updates to 13+updates+testing
> > broken deps look like below. While several may be due to dead packages
> > that have been removed in 13, some are likely due to violated upgrade
> > paths and bad/missing Obsoletes for ol
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 04:16:20 +
Leigh Scott wrote:
> avant-window-navigator doesn't have broken deps, this error occurred
> because the F12 package had a higher release version.
> Perhaps yum should deal with this better i.e take dist tag into
> account
Release trumps dist tag by design. This
2010/2/21 Michael Schwendt :
> Just for kicks, the current
>
> Upgrade from 12+updates to 13+updates+testing
>
> broken deps look like below. While several may be due to dead packages
> that have been removed in 13, some are likely due to violated upgrade
> paths and bad/missing Obsoletes for
On Saturday 20 February 2010 08:34:39 pm Braden McDaniel wrote:
> (portions snipped)
>
> On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 20:20 -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> > ...
> I'm happy to fix it if I can figure out what's broken.
> > ...
> That's not it.
> > ...
> Also not it.
> > ...
> Nope.
>
> > I think that's ever
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 20:20 -0800, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> On Saturday 20 February 2010 06:03:28 pm Braden McDaniel wrote:
> > I guess I should properly read the headings... I guess I misunderstood
> > where this was going from your summary.
> >
> > If I understand it correctly, it's telling me tha
On Saturday 20 February 2010 08:20:17 pm Conrad Meyer wrote:
> I think that's everything.
Oh, and I forgot something: After making whatever changes need to be made to
F-13, tag and rebuild the package.
Regards,
--
Conrad Meyer
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.
On Saturday 20 February 2010 06:03:28 pm Braden McDaniel wrote:
> I guess I should properly read the headings... I guess I misunderstood
> where this was going from your summary.
>
> If I understand it correctly, it's telling me that a F12 that hasn't
> been updated will have problems being upgrad
avant-window-navigator doesn't have broken deps, this error occurred
because the F12 package had a higher release version.
Perhaps yum should deal with this better i.e take dist tag into account
On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 02:15 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
Michael Schwendt writes:
> mysql-cluster-5.1.42-7.fc12.i686 requires mysql = 0:5.1.42-7.fc12
Yeah, so? Those come out of the same SRPM, so it's hardly possible that
we are providing one and not the other. I think there's something
fishy about your script.
regards,
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 20:46 -0500, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 02:15 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Just for kicks, the current
> >
> >Upgrade from 12+updates to 13+updates+testing
> >
> > broken deps look like below. While several may be due to dead packages
> > t
On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 02:15 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Just for kicks, the current
>
>Upgrade from 12+updates to 13+updates+testing
>
> broken deps look like below. While several may be due to dead packages
> that have been removed in 13, some are likely due to violated upgrade
> pa
Just for kicks, the current
Upgrade from 12+updates to 13+updates+testing
broken deps look like below. While several may be due to dead packages
that have been removed in 13, some are likely due to violated upgrade
paths and bad/missing Obsoletes for old subpackages.
[...]
Summary of brok
25 matches
Mail list logo
