Max Horn wrote: > Am 27.04.2008 um 13:19 schrieb Martin Costabel: > >> Max Horn wrote: >>> Here is the next one I got: >>> Reading buildlock packages... >>> All buildlocks accounted for. >>> While trying to install: >>> glibmm2.4-dev-2.14.2-2 >>> glibmm2.4-shlibs-2.14.2-2 >>> The following inconsistencies found: >>> Unsatisfied dependency in glibmm2.4: glibmm2.4-dev (= >>> 2.12.10-1003) >> It would be interesting to know how you got there. Not by using >> update-all, I suppose? Was glibmm2.4-dev-2.14.2-2 pulled in as a >> dependency of something else? > > Not an update-all, right, I wanted to update certain packages only. > But I can reduce the issue to the case you mentioned: > >> Does "fink update glibmm2.4" work, or does it block itself? > > It blocks itself.
In this situation it is hard to see an automatic update path that would work in all cases. Or perhaps, if the new glibmm2.4-dev (in file glibmm2.4-shlibs.info) had not only Replaces: glibmm2.4 (<< %v-%r) which it does, but also Conflicts: glibmm2.4 (<< %v-%r) this could work. -- Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel