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

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

 



nigel henry wrote:
Update:

Apt has just installed libgssapi, nfs-utils-lib with no dependency problems. Admittadly, it has removed nfs-utils (1.0.8.rc2-5.FC5). I do not use NFS. It was installed as part of the default install. There are some errors showing perhaps to the removal of nfs-utils.
Shutting down NFS mountd: [FAILED]
Shutting down NFS daemon: [FAILED]
Shutting down NFS quotas : [FAILED]
Shutting down NFS services:  [  OK  ]
Shutting down RPC idmapd: [FAILED]
Stopping NFS statd:  [  OK  ]

The only nfs-utils package that synaptic shows as available is 1.0.8.rc2-5.FC5, which is the one that Apt has removed, and that various posts have said is wrongly named.

Trying to use synaptic to reinstall nfs-utils (1.0.8.rc2-5.FC5) just brings up dependency issues. (The following packages have unresolvable dependencies)
nfs-utils:

Predepends: librpcsecgss.so.1

Predepends: config(nfs-utils) (= 1.0.8.rc2-5.FC5)

Predepends: libgssapi.so.1

Hopefully the correct version of nfs-utils will turn up soon to correct the situation.

Nigel.


My apologies for the problems with nfs-utils. Someone mentioned that the version in fedora-core is recognized as newer than the version located in updates-testing. This is due to the rc2 in its naming scheme. The version in updates-testing does not contain the rc2 portion in the name. RPM and any rpm updating program will do the same thing because of the way rpm treats the rpm.

I'm running development so I do not have the influence caused by the package being located in the core repository. Downloading nfs-utils and installing with rpm --nodeps --oldpackage fixed the defect in naming and updating is correct in development.

All I can think of is for those to disable the fedora-core repository until nfs-utils is either incremented by epoch or version number.

The person responsible for the package was on vacation and might be back soon to take action to correct the error. 1.0.9 should be out evenetually. This should be seen as newer.

As is obvious, there are many threads with different conclusions filling up the mailing list.

Trying to be clear with the explanation.
Jim

--
You must be the change you wish to see in the world.
     --Mahatma Gandhi

--
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