Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

[Frank Griffin]

Frank Griffin wrote:

I'll try it on a fresh cooker install.  The one I did it on was up to 
date for today, but the install was from a few days ago and I had been 
keeping it current with urpmi.
Well. I will as soon as the install gets fixed so that X (and therefore 
rpmdrake) can be run

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

[Frank Griffin]

Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:

So, the problem
appears to be in the FlashPlayer RPM,
   

Maybe you could report that to the author of the RPM then?
Thanks!
 

Happy to, but the maximum info display in rpmdrake Changelog just lists

* Thu Dec 12 2002 Mandrake Linux Team  
6.0-3mdk

as the maintainer.  Can you tell me to whom to send this request ?

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

[Guillaume Cottenceau]

Frank Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> 
> >Is it reproducable with another package? Here I can see no
> >problems..
> >
> >
> I did a fresh install this morning, went to a root command line,
> added the Club Commercial site as a media, and did
> 
>urpmi FlashPlayer
> 
> This got the same error that I reported for rpmdrake.  When I
> added --allow-force, it worked as before.  So, the problem
> appears to be in the FlashPlayer RPM, which wouldn't be so
> annoying if swfdec actually worked on most of the swf's out there
> :-)

Maybe you could report that to the author of the RPM then?
Thanks!
 

-- 
Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

[Lyvim Xaphir]

On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 11:18, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> Frank Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> > 
> > >>So, the problem
> > >>appears to be in the FlashPlayer RPM,
> > >>
> > >
> > >Maybe you could report that to the author of the RPM then?
> > >Thanks!
> > >
> > >
> > Happy to, but the maximum info display in rpmdrake Changelog just lists
> > 
> > * Thu Dec 12 2002 Mandrake Linux Team
> >  6.0-3mdk
> > 
> > as the maintainer.  Can you tell me to whom to send this request ?
> 
> I confess (to the risk of being Livym Xaphir's bashed again) I'm
> not very fluent with Club. Actually I've not logged in for ages..
> I don't even know who does those rpm's now..

Don't worry, GC. :)

LX

-- 

Kernel 2.4.21-0.13mdk   Linux Mandrake 9.1
Enlightenment-0.16.5-12mdk  Evolution 1.2.4-1.1mdk
Linux User #268899 http://counter.li.org/

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

[Charles A Edwards]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:43:57 -0400
Frank Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> urpmi --no-verify-rpm --allow-force FlashPlayer
> 
> and it installed cleanly without a single complaint.

Had you not used --allow-force urpmi would have given you the same error
as did rpmdrake.


Charles

-- 
Eloquence is logic on fire.
-
Mandrake Linux 9.2 on PurpleDragon
Kernel- 2.4.21.6mdk http://www.eslrahc.com 
-


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

[Frank Griffin]

Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:

Is it reproducable with another package? Here I can see no
problems..
 

I did a fresh install this morning, went to a root command line, added 
the Club Commercial site as a media, and did

  urpmi FlashPlayer

This got the same error that I reported for rpmdrake.  When I added 
--allow-force, it worked as before.  So, the problem appears to be in 
the FlashPlayer RPM, which wouldn't be so annoying if swfdec actually 
worked on most of the swf's out there :-)

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

[Ben Reser]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 05:27:08PM +0200, Buchan Milne wrote:
> Well, it's not specific to Club, the same packages are on the commercial
> CDs.
> 
> And the disparity between packaging files for commercial apps and other
> packages has been an issue before. If people building for Club need to
> make one fix to a package, or update it (like Nvidia drivers for example
> - and with the ones for 9.1 I couldn't even find the release used in the
> commercial packages from NVidia), you have to start from scratch.
> 
> It would be nice if at least the spec files were available in CVS ...

I had this same sort of issue.  I wanted to package real player for PPC.
Had to start over from scratch.  I'm stilling waiting for someone from
Mandrakesoft to tell me if their agreement with Real that lets them
distribute the package for i586 lets them do so for PPC so I can upload
the package...  

-- 
Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ben.reser.org

"What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can
no longer believe you." -- Nietzsche

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

[Frank Griffin]

Charles A Edwards wrote:

Had you not used --allow-force urpmi would have given you the same error
as did rpmdrake.
 

That's not what I would expect.  From the man page:

  --allow-force
 Allow urpmi to ask user to continue installation using no 
depen-
 dencies checking or forced installation due to error. By 
default
 urpmi exit immediately in such case.

Previously, I've had it display the errors and then prompt me as to 
whether I want to continue.

[Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

[Frank Griffin]

I just tried to install the MandrakeClub Commercial FlashPlayer package 
on today's cooker with rpmdrake, and got the error:

FlashPlayer-6.0-3mdk.i586 (due to unsatisfied 
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1

I then went to command line and tried:

urpmi --no-verify-rpm --allow-force FlashPlayer

and it installed cleanly without a single complaint.

I use --no-verify-rpm because of the current key incompatibilities in 
Cooker, and I know that urpmi has complained about unsatisfied 
conditions (see an earlier bug report today about printer-utils) even 
with this switch.

So is rpmdrake imagining unsatisfied dependencies or is urpmi ignoring 
them ?  Or am I just doing something dumb without realizing it ?

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

[Guillaume Cottenceau]

Frank Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> So is rpmdrake imagining unsatisfied dependencies or is urpmi
> ignoring them ?  Or am I just doing something dumb without
> realizing it ?

Is it reproducable with another package? Here I can see no
problems..

-- 
Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

[Frank Griffin]

Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:

Is it reproducable with another package? Here I can see no
problems..
 

I'll try it on a fresh cooker install.  The one I did it on was up to 
date for today, but the install was from a few days ago and I had been 
keeping it current with urpmi.

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

[Buchan Milne]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> Frank Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>>Happy to, but the maximum info display in rpmdrake Changelog just lists
>>
>>* Thu Dec 12 2002 Mandrake Linux Team
>> 6.0-3mdk
>>
>>as the maintainer.  Can you tell me to whom to send this request ?
>
>
> I confess (to the risk of being Livym Xaphir's bashed again) I'm
> not very fluent with Club. Actually I've not logged in for ages..
> I don't even know who does those rpm's now..
>

Well, it's not specific to Club, the same packages are on the commercial
CDs.

And the disparity between packaging files for commercial apps and other
packages has been an issue before. If people building for Club need to
make one fix to a package, or update it (like Nvidia drivers for example
- - and with the ones for 9.1 I couldn't even find the release used in the
commercial packages from NVidia), you have to start from scratch.

It would be nice if at least the spec files were available in CVS ...

Regards,
Buchan

- --
|--Another happy Mandrake Club member--|
Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager
Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202
Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za
GPG Key   http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc
1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/M8FMrJK6UGDSBKcRAl70AKDGteaC5aT2GHUKAmzN4ILhDJurhACeLvo3
cob5LPrIFzBC5s/0sevw6Zs=
=8/8E
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

**
Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our
e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy.
**

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

[Guillaume Cottenceau]

Frank Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
> 
> >>So, the problem
> >>appears to be in the FlashPlayer RPM,
> >>
> >
> >Maybe you could report that to the author of the RPM then?
> >Thanks!
> >
> >
> Happy to, but the maximum info display in rpmdrake Changelog just lists
> 
> * Thu Dec 12 2002 Mandrake Linux Team
>  6.0-3mdk
> 
> as the maintainer.  Can you tell me to whom to send this request ?

I confess (to the risk of being Livym Xaphir's bashed again) I'm
not very fluent with Club. Actually I've not logged in for ages..
I don't even know who does those rpm's now..

-- 
Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

[François Pons]

Frank Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I just tried to install the MandrakeClub Commercial FlashPlayer package on
> today's cooker with rpmdrake, and got the error:
> 
> FlashPlayer-6.0-3mdk.i586 (due to unsatisfied rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <=
> 4.0-1

This is strange, such error should not happens in fact because there are simply
ignored (normally).

> I then went to command line and tried:
> 
> urpmi --no-verify-rpm --allow-force FlashPlayer
> 
> and it installed cleanly without a single complaint.

Beware that adding --allow-force change way the resolution is done (especially
for unsatisfied dependencies...).

So try again without this flag.

Francois.

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

[François Pons]

Frank Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Charles A Edwards wrote:
> 
> >Had you not used --allow-force urpmi would have given you the same error
> >as did rpmdrake.
> >
> That's not what I would expect.  From the man page:
> 
>--allow-force
>   Allow urpmi to ask user to continue installation using no depen-
>   dencies checking or forced installation due to error. By default
>   urpmi exit immediately in such case.
> 
> Previously, I've had it display the errors and then prompt me as to whether I
> want to continue.

I have to change the man page, now --allow-force authorize the resolution
dependencies algorithm to ignore unsatisfied dependencies in order to avoid
removing packages, this is a hack of course.

Why it has been added to this option ? Because --allow-force allo package to be
installed with broken dependencies, so we continue on the same road...

Francois.