Your solution requires that both packages are available in binary
format. In my case one of them did not build due to the presence of the other!
Matt Wilson writes:
> The right solution:
>
> # rpm -Uvh procps-2.0.7-2.i686.rpm rusers-server-0.17-5.i386.rpm
>
> Something that concerns me abo
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, John Summerfield wrote:
> Damn. Took the letters off my keyboard.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with most (I'm not sure writing isn't
> fun) of what RPH says.
Oh --- writing, per se, is usually fun; I was trained in part as a
professional wordsmith. "writing documentation" --
> The tool is not complete until the 'paperwork' is done. But
> if one follows the RPM list, the emphasis is clear --
> 'someone else' can submit that part - 'patches are welcome'.
Damn. Took the letters off my keyboard.
I agree wholeheartedly with most (I'm not sure writing isn't fun) of what
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000, Matt Wilson wrote:
> The right solution:
>
> # rpm -Uvh procps-2.0.7-2.i686.rpm rusers-server-0.17-5.i386.rpm
>
> Something that concerns me about RPM users is that the don't realize
> that they can satisfy co-dependencies by upgrading to packages at
> once. I think we nee
The right solution:
# rpm -Uvh procps-2.0.7-2.i686.rpm rusers-server-0.17-5.i386.rpm
Something that concerns me about RPM users is that the don't realize
that they can satisfy co-dependencies by upgrading to packages at
once. I think we need a good packaging tool to help fix this.
Matt
On Sat
procps-2.0.7-2: Fails to upgrade due to rusers-server dependency
rpm -Uvh procps-2.0.7-2.i686.rpm
error: failed dependencies:
libproc.so.2.0.6 is needed by rusers-server-0.17-5
rusers-0.17-6: Fails to build with two versions of
/lib/libproc.so.2.0.[6,7] installed
rpm --rebuild --target=i
