Re: All I want for Christmas is digiKam 1.0 in F12-stable...
Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > That's to be expected, as "rpm -i" installs a package without removing > the old one. Unless the package is specially designed (like the > kernel) you'll get conflicts. Normally, you'd want to use "rpm -U" > which will remove the old package before installing the new one. Actually, it installs the new package first, replacing any files from the old one without reporting them as a conflict, then removes the files from the old package which are not in the new one. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: All I want for Christmas is digiKam 1.0 in F12-stable...
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 09:18 -0600, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Linuxguy123 wrote: > > > > As for installation, doing a straight rpm -i over the -beta6 install > > resulted in a slew of error messages regarding file conflicts. I did a > > yum remove digikam and then an rpm -i and everything worked fine. > > That's to be expected, as "rpm -i" installs a package without removing > the old one. Unless the package is specially designed (like the > kernel) you'll get conflicts. Normally, you'd want to use "rpm -U" > which will remove the old package before installing the new one. DOH, what the heck was I thinking ? I KNEW that. Sheesh ! :smacks forehead with open hand: I was thinking it was an install because I had downloaded the rpms. I don't usually have to download rpms to do updates because I just use yum. Thanks for the reply. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: All I want for Christmas is digiKam 1.0 in F12-stable...
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Linuxguy123 wrote: > > As for installation, doing a straight rpm -i over the -beta6 install > resulted in a slew of error messages regarding file conflicts. I did a > yum remove digikam and then an rpm -i and everything worked fine. That's to be expected, as "rpm -i" installs a package without removing the old one. Unless the package is specially designed (like the kernel) you'll get conflicts. Normally, you'd want to use "rpm -U" which will remove the old package before installing the new one. -- Jeff Ollie -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: All I want for Christmas is digiKam 1.0 in F12-stable...
On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 11:46 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > Linuxguy123 wrote: > > > digiKam 1.0.0 was released today. I think a lot of us are running > > 1.0-beta 6 installed via yum. Would it be possible to get 1.0.0 into > > F12 stable prior to Christmas ? > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/digikam-1.0.0-1.fc12 > > stable that quickly? I'd feel a bit uncomfortable without at least some > testing and positive feedback. Nice job providing a means for installation without building from source and so quickly. Good work. As for installation, doing a straight rpm -i over the -beta6 install resulted in a slew of error messages regarding file conflicts. I did a yum remove digikam and then an rpm -i and everything worked fine. Thanks again. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: All I want for Christmas is digiKam 1.0 in F12-stable...
On 12/22/2009 09:15 AM, Ryan Rix wrote: On Mon 21 December 2009 10:46:51 am Rex Dieter wrote: I'd feel a bit uncomfortable without at least some testing and positive feedback. Once people try testing Rex's updated package, please provide feedback at Rex's link about it, eg what's working, not working about this build ? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: All I want for Christmas is digiKam 1.0 in F12-stable...
On Mon 21 December 2009 10:46:51 am Rex Dieter wrote: > I'd feel a bit uncomfortable without at least some > testing and positive feedback. > Big +1 there. -- Ryan Rix Fedora KDE SIG Member, Phoenix AZ Ambassador, News KDE Beat writer New Mail address: phrkonale...@gmail.com -> r...@n.rix.si !! http://hackersramblings.wordpress.com | http://identi.ca/phrkonaleash XMPP: phrkonale...@gmail.com | MSN: phrkonale...@yahoo.com AIM: phrkonaleash| Yahoo: phrkonaleash IRC: phrkon...@irc.freenode.net/#srcedit,#plugaz,#fedora-kde and countless other FOSS channels. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: All I want for Christmas is digiKam 1.0 in F12-stable...
Linuxguy123 wrote: > digiKam 1.0.0 was released today. I think a lot of us are running > 1.0-beta 6 installed via yum. Would it be possible to get 1.0.0 into > F12 stable prior to Christmas ? https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/digikam-1.0.0-1.fc12 stable that quickly? I'd feel a bit uncomfortable without at least some testing and positive feedback. -- Rex -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
All I want for Christmas is digiKam 1.0 in F12-stable...
digiKam 1.0.0 was released today. I think a lot of us are running 1.0-beta 6 installed via yum. Would it be possible to get 1.0.0 into F12 stable prior to Christmas ? I know I can build it from source, but I need to install it on several machines and it would be much easier to do it via a yum update. I'm also behind on my Christmas shopping... Thanks for listening. Season's Greetings ! LG -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
