On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 13:31:04 -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> So your expectation is that -e --repackage should also remove
> the package,
Yes.
> I believe (but rpm-4.4.2 was like 3+ years ago) that --repackage takes
> precedence over --erase.
No - every package always is erased when -e --repac
Kamil Dziedzic wrote:
> Krystian Tomczyk wrote:
> > wine-0.9.49-1.i686 suggests installation of: binfmt-detector
> > Try to install it? [N/y]
> >
> > Maybe first test if package is installed and if not then write this
> > question?
>
> ... and one more thing. When there are more than one Suggest it
On Nov 18, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote:
>
>>> # rpm -q --qf "%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{arch}\n" libpcap
>>> libpcap-0.9.7-1.athlon
>>> libpcap-0.9.4-1.amd64
>>> # rpm -e libpcap-0.9.7-1.athlon
>>> # rpm -q --qf "%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{arch}\n" libpcap
>>> libpcap-0.9.7-1.at
Subsystem sftp/usr/lib6464/openssh/sftp-server
^^^
--
Tomasz Pala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 12:37:28 -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> You're worried about error msgs like these?
>
> erase unlink of /usr/lib/libsrp.so.0.0.0 failed: No such file or
> directory
No - I've removed these files by hand. I'm worried about not removing
package at all:
> > # rpm -q --qf "%
You're worried about error msgs like these?
erase unlink of /usr/lib/libsrp.so.0.0.0 failed: No such file or
directory
Repackaging is "best effort", its impossible to repackage
content that is not present on the file system. Similarly erasures,
the failure to remove a file that is not present i
# rpm -q --qf "%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{arch}\n" libpcap
libpcap-0.9.7-1.athlon
libpcap-0.9.4-1.amd64
# rpm -e libpcap-0.9.7-1.athlon
# rpm -q --qf "%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{arch}\n" libpcap
libpcap-0.9.7-1.athlon
libpcap-0.9.4-1.amd64
rpm-4.4.2-46 --rebuilddb and --justdb didn't hel
