On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Colin Guthrie <mag...@colin.guthr.ie> wrote: > 'Twas brillig, and Colin Guthrie at 20/05/11 11:22 did gyre and gimble: >> To satisfy dependencies, the following packages are going to be installed: >> Package Version Release Arch >> (medium "CoreRelease-64") >> protobuf 2.3.0 10.mga1 x86_64 >> protobuf-compiler 2.3.0 10.mga1 x86_64 >> 1.6MB of additional disk space will be used. >> 473KB of packages will be retrieved. >> Proceed with the installation of the 2 packages? (Y/n) >> >> >> installing protobuf-2.3.0-10.mga1.x86_64.rpm >> protobuf-compiler-2.3.0-10.mga1.x86_64.rpm from /var/cache/urpmi/rpms >> Preparing... >> ############################################# >> Installation failed: file /usr/lib64/libprotobuf.so.6.0.0 from install >> of protobuf-2.3.0-10.mga1.x86_64 conflicts with file from package >> lib64protobuf6-2.3.0-2.mga1.x86_64 >> file /usr/lib64/libprotoc.so.6.0.0 from install of >> protobuf-compiler-2.3.0-10.mga1.x86_64 conflicts with file from package >> lib64protoc6-2.3.0-2.mga1.x86_64 >> >> >> Was the lib really moved out of a libified package into a main package? >> The old package policy seems correct to me... > > What is even stranger is that the earliest date in subversion is April > 26, but the package I have installed is from a month earlier: > > > Name : lib64protobuf6 Relocations: (not relocatable) > Version : 2.3.0 Vendor: Mageia.Org > Release : 2.mga1 Build Date: Mon 28 Mar 2011 > 14:17:59 BST > Install Date: Wed 30 Mar 2011 19:35:32 BST Build Host: jonund > Group : System/Libraries Source RPM: > protobuf-2.3.0-2.mga1.src.rpm > > > Was the protobuf spec perhaps reimported without properly libification > and overwrote the old version? > > Col >
i take a look now.