On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 09:11 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote: > All I know is "not me" (because not my code and not my packaging > and I don't have the time nor energy to explain why an integrity > check on all package metadata cannot be fixed by adding or deleting > information in the metadata.)
Ok, I see. > Perhaps I'm confused … there appear to be 2 problems in this thread. I think this is indeed the case. > The original report claimed > error: Failed dependencies: > ld-linux.so.2(GLIBC_PRIVATE) is needed by dante-1.3.1-1.el5.zyv.i386 Yes, the problem was that the software was indeed using private glibc symbols, which is disallowed as per Fedora / RHEL policy. I didn't realize that I included the wrong patch to fix it, so my first stab at it was ineffective. Later on, Dag hinted me of another way to correct it and get rid of this dependency altogether, which I implemented and rebuilt the packages. > A later report claimed that adding --nogpgcheck "fixed". Yes, this problem surfaced, because I intentionally do not sign test packages, and while Armin was initially using rpm -Uvh (which didn't enforce a signature check) I asked him to do yum localinstall instead (to pull in *other* dependencies, most notably libminiupnpc). In this case, of course, he also had to use --nogpgcheck explicitly to get the packages installed, because they were not signed. > That was the basis of my comment: > Adding --nogpgcheck cannot solve a missing dependency. True, but it was me who solved the missing dependency in the mean time, which is, I guess, the basis for confusion. Thanks for the clarification! -- Sincerely yours, Yury V. Zaytsev _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.repoforge.org/mailman/listinfo/users
