Am Samstag, 29. Dezember 2007 schrieb Stefan Tittel:
> Hi!
>
> The SMART package manager has a nice feature, which shows dependency
> problems even for uninstalled packages ("Edit"->"Check All Packages"). On
> my system only the official SUSE repositories and Packman are active and
> using this feature shows a lot of Packman packages having unresolvable
> dependencies. For some of the packages I checked myself if SMART is right
> about it and it seems like SMART really has a point with what it's saying:
>
> Unsatisfied dependency: [EMAIL PROTECTED] requires tetex
> Unsatisfied dependency: [EMAIL PROTECTED] requires te_latex
this is correct, it requires really tetex to work:)
> Unsatisfied dependency: [EMAIL PROTECTED] requires libx264.so.54
is in work, we've updated x264> Unsatisfied dependency: [EMAIL PROTECTED] requires libTMCG.so.1 yes, alos correct > Unsatisfied dependency: [EMAIL PROTECTED] requires > SuperCollider yes, it requires SuperCollider. it is a Frontendfor it ... > Unsatisfied dependency: [EMAIL PROTECTED] requires > postgresql-debuginfo Unsatisfied dependency: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > requires libavogadro = 0.2.0 > Unsatisfied dependency: [EMAIL PROTECTED] requires libbtcore >= 0.2.0 > Unsatisfied dependency: [EMAIL PROTECTED] requires CsoundVST > Unsatisfied dependency: [EMAIL PROTECTED] requires > libx264.so.54 is in work, we've updated x264 > Unsatisfied dependency: [EMAIL PROTECTED] requires portmidi yes, its true it requires package portmidi > Unsatisfied dependency: [EMAIL PROTECTED] requires > libbzip2-devel Unsatisfied dependency: [EMAIL PROTECTED] requires > python-ncurses Unsatisfied dependency: [EMAIL PROTECTED] requires > python-elementtree Unsatisfied dependency: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] requires fox16 = 2.1.0-0.pm.14 his is correct as fox16 is a virtual package for a possible fox-replacement > Unsatisfied dependency: [EMAIL PROTECTED] requires > libogmrip = 0.11.2 every devel package needs the corresponding shared lib ... just to give some samples ... <snip> > From what I see a real lot of Packman packages seem to be broken (in the > sense that they can't be installed/upgraded because of unresolved > dependencies). To me it seems like a good idea if packagers could use this > SMART feature as a basic QA measure to minimize package breakage in the > future. h3h3, ok, so you believe in this feature, I don't ... and it is not an indicator for broken packages, see my comments from above. And I won't comment all of them... just to give you an idea. > Thanks in advance for fixing these problems and a happy New Year to all of > you! > have fun > Regards, > Stefan Toni _______________________________________________ Packman mailing list [email protected] http://212.112.227.138/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/packman
