--- Tim Wunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Net Llama wrote: > > ...but i suspect you took a > > longer, circuitous route to getting this working than was neccesary. > > > I wouldn't think so. His problem was that rpm didn't know about the db > > version he had installed (or, more specifically, the libdb version), > and > as a result didn't know the libdb dependancy was resolved. I imagine > he > coulda "--force"'d the install, or "--nodep"'d it and all woulda been > OK. But, if you're gonna use rpm to install, you might as well satisfy > > what it thinks are its dependancies, even though the dependancies are > met and rpm just doesn't know about it. > > As it stands now, rpm knows about his db install, and he's running a > newer version than he was when he started, and he's got a current rpm > version that'll read version 4 rpm's. Seems to me to be worth the > potentially more ciruitous route.
It seems that *only* RPMs for rpm-3.0.6 (or higher) require db to be installed. If he installed the tarball for rpm-3.0.6 he prolly wouldn't have had the problem. THat was my point. ===== ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step help: http://netllama.ipfox.com . __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
