On 12/12/2012 06:00 AM, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:


On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:42 AM, O&M Ugarcina <mo.uc...@gmail.com 
<mailto:mo.uc...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    On 06/12/12 19:39, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote:



        On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:08 PM, George Galt <george.g...@gmail.com 
<mailto:george.g...@gmail.com> <mailto:george.g...@gmail.com 
<mailto:george.g...@gmail.com>>__> wrote:

             Paulo:

             I get a conflict with:
             Transaction Check Error:
               file /usr/bin/nvidia-cuda-proxy-__control from install of
             nvidia-graphics310.19-310.19-__151.fc16.x86_64 conflicts with file
             from package nvidia-graphics304.51-304.51-__149.fc16.x86_64
               file /usr/bin/nvidia-cuda-proxy-__server from install of
             nvidia-graphics310.19-310.19-__151.fc16.x86_64 conflicts with file
             from package nvidia-graphics304.51-304.51-__149.fc16.x86_64

             I got the same error when I tried to install the 304.64 driver
             (I'm on the 304.51 driver).  I believe that the 304.51 driver
             introduced these files (they weren't in the 302 driver).  What is
             the appropriate way to handle this?  I'm sure I could simply
             ignore the error, but for those who want a clean install (or to
             leave legacy drivers installed in case they need to return to
             them), we might want to fix this issue too.

             Sorry to be a PITA!


        This was happening before.
        nvidia-cuda-proxy-control is a new file, which appeared
        in the 300 series. Since it is unversioned, and the previous package
        is not being removed, the conflict appears.

        We can either supply it in a separate package, or just
        filter it as we did with libnvcuvid.so

        In the next package, I will deal with this issue. For now,
        just use "sudo rpm -Uvh --force ...."
        .19-151.el6.x86_64


    I just had to force it in , with --nodeps option , so far seems to be 
working ok .


    Best Regards

    Milorad



This is because the macros I used to filter the "required"
should not be available for centos/rhel.

I have no solution for that...

Paulo, I would expect those macros to be available for RHEL6 and modern Fedora, 
just leaving RHEL5 with issues?

_______________________________________________
atrpms-devel mailing list
atrpms-devel@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel

Reply via email to