Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

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

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

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

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 Flash

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

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! >

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

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 -- Eloq

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

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. Whe

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

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 > mak

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

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 checkin

[Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

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 FlashPlay

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

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.m

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

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

-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 maintai

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

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 lis

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

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

Re: [Cooker] rpmdrake vs. urpmi weirdness

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 con