Re: libgssapi.so.1 is needed by package nfs-utils

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Bob Goodwin wrote:
Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
Bob Goodwin wrote:
Your experience is not unique. You can a) file a bug report ("a good
thing"), b) exclude nfs-utils and update the remaining packages, c)
wait a day or two and hope that it is a repository synchronization
problem or d) do nothing.

No amount of "exclude=anything" seems to help?

yum update  --exclude=*nfs* --exclude=*xine*

It looks to me like the only option is "do nothing" and wait?

--> Running transaction check
--> Processing Dependency: libgssapi.so.1 for package: nfs-utils
--> Processing Dependency: libdirectfb-0.9.so.24 for package: xine-lib
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Missing Dependency: libdirectfb-0.9.so.24 is needed by package xine-lib
Error: Missing Dependency: libgssapi.so.1 is needed by package nfs-utils


I don't know about xine updates, however, for FC-core updates, excluding both nfs-utils-lib and libgssapi is needed.

"Error: Missing Dependency: libdirectfb-0.9.so.24 is needed by package xine-lib
Error: Missing Dependency: libgssapi.so.1 is needed by package nfs-utils "

I did yum remove xine without success, finally had to yum remove xine-lib after which yum -y upgrade --exclude=nfs-utils* --exclude=libgssapi* allowed the update process to
run to completion.

Now to re-install xine ...

Bob Goodwin
NOTE: This nfs-utils problems is known to FC-devel or FC6T1 users from several weeks ago. I don't know why this problem was not checked before releasing these updates......

See:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196359
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197219
and
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2006-June/msg00933.html



There are many threads on the list currently with different subjects. They all reference the same problem caused by the rc in the package name.

The naming of the current rpm has an oddity in its name which makes it appear newer than the package that is actually newer. Check the below posting from the fedora-test-list. If you are running updates-testing, the list has much value.

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2006-June/msg00404.html

This one case where the --nodeps option to rpm is used with good reason. :-)

Jim

--
In specifications, Murphy's Law supersedes Ohm's.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux