https://qa.mandrakesoft.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-01-03 02:15 ------- Hit the commit button too fast... libgtk+2-devel is provided by libgtk+-x11-2.0_0-devel. I set this as invalid, but the all thing seems a bit abstruse to me and to urpmf: $ urpmf --provides libgtk+2-devel $ Zilch. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ------- Reminder: ------- assigned_to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] description: A dependency on libgtk+2-devel prevents installing this rpm: $ rpm -Uvh libgnomecanvas2_0-devel-2.1.5-1mdk.i586.rpm error: failed dependencies: libgtk+2-devel >= 2.0.3 is needed by libgnomecanvas2_0-devel-2.1.5-1mdk $ rpm -q --provides libgtk+2.0_0-devel libgtk+2.0_0-devel = 2.2.0-1mdk Versioning headache... Shouldn't an official rule be adopted that libgtk+2.0_0-devel provides libgtk+2-devel, libgnomeprintui2-2_0-devel provides libgnomeprintui2-devel, etc. Look at this one: $ rpm -qp --provides libgnomeprintui2-2_0-devel-2.1.5-1mdk.i586.rpm libgnomeprintui-devel = 2.1.5-1mdk libgnomeprintui2-2-devel = 2.1.5-1mdk <--- duh! libgnomeprintui2-2_0-devel = 2.1.5-1mdk It is currently quite difficult to find the correct way to write the rpm (Build)Requires elements.