RE: [expert] rpm-3.0 to rpm-4.0 catch 22

2001-02-03 Thread cfreeze
On 03-Feb-2001 Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: > Questions: > > 1. Is there a rpm package distributor that identifies which version of > rpm was used to build the packages? Who? Doesn't matter, the rpm package itself is binary compatible between version 3 and 4. (See the list archieves on

Re: [expert] rpm-3.0 to rpm-4.0 catch 22

2001-02-03 Thread Richard -Gilligan- Uschold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 03-Feb-2001 Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: > Questions: > > 1.  Is there a rpm package distributor that identifies which version of > rpm was used to build the packages?  Who? Doesn't matter, the rpm package itself is binary compatible between version 3 and 4.  (See

Re: [expert] rpm-3.0 to rpm-4.0 catch 22

2001-02-03 Thread Bill Piety
On 03 Feb 2001 19:30:26 +, Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On 03-Feb-2001 Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: > > > Questions: > > > > > > 1. Is there a rpm package distributor that identifies which version of > > > rpm was used to build the packages? Who? >

Re: [expert] rpm-3.0 to rpm-4.0 catch 22

2001-02-03 Thread cfreeze
On 03-Feb-2001 Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: > If that is the case, please explain the following error message to me, and > how I > correct it. Several other people have said I need to upgrade to rpm-4.0, or > perhaps only 3.0.5 or 3.0.6. I get this error with both 3.0.3 and 3.0.5. > > The

Re: [expert] rpm-3.0 to rpm-4.0 catch 22

2001-02-03 Thread Richard -Gilligan- Uschold
Bill Piety wrote: On 03 Feb 2001 19:30:26 +, Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On 03-Feb-2001 Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: > > > Questions: > > > > > > 1.  Is there a rpm package distributor that identifies which version of > > > rpm was used to build the

Re: [expert] rpm-3.0 to rpm-4.0 catch 22

2001-02-03 Thread Bill Piety
On 04 Feb 2001 01:18:55 +, Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: > Bill Piety wrote: > > > On 03 Feb 2001 19:30:26 +, Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > On 03-Feb-2001 Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: > > > > > Questions: > > > > > > > > > > 1. Is

Re: [expert] rpm-3.0 to rpm-4.0 catch 22

2001-02-03 Thread Richard -Gilligan- Uschold
Bill Piety wrote: On 04 Feb 2001 01:18:55 +, Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: > Bill Piety wrote: > > > On 03 Feb 2001 19:30:26 +, Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > On 03-Feb-2001 Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: > > > > > Questions: > > > >

Re: [expert] rpm-3.0 to rpm-4.0 catch 22

2001-02-04 Thread Bill Piety
On 04 Feb 2001 05:04:47 +, Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: > Bill Piety wrote: > > > On 04 Feb 2001 01:18:55 +, Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: > > > Bill Piety wrote: > > > > > > > On 03 Feb 2001 19:30:26 +, Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >

Re: [expert] rpm-3.0 to rpm-4.0 catch 22

2001-02-04 Thread Richard -Gilligan- Uschold
Bill Piety wrote: On 04 Feb 2001 05:04:47 +, Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: > Bill Piety wrote: > ... > > I did most of this from kpackage, except the --rebuilddb, and where noted. > Here's what I did: > > ignore: rpm-3.0.3-5x.i386.rpm    kpackage doesn't display, older than 3.0.3-43mdk >

Re: [expert] rpm-3.0 to rpm-4.0 catch 22

2001-02-04 Thread Bill Piety
On 04 Feb 2001 21:46:32 +, Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: > Bill Piety wrote: > > > On 04 Feb 2001 05:04:47 +, Richard -Gilligan- Uschold wrote: > > > Bill Piety wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > > I did most of this from kpackage, except the --rebuilddb, and where noted. > > > Here's