On 03/24/2011 07:16 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:48:53 -0400, Kevin wrote: > >>> Updated By: directfb-1.4.11-3.fc14.x86_64 (updates) >>> Not found >>> Available: directfb-1.4.3-1.fc14.x86_64 (fedora) >>> libdirectfb-1.4.so.0()(64bit) >>> You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem >> >> Yet another well tested update. B^) And a bunch of dependencies with = >> Requires instead of >= Requires. >> >> Seems the new directfb package is now providing libdirectfb-1.4.so.5 >> instead of libdirectfb-1.4.so.0 ..... >> >> --skip-broken will update everything else, but the problem with directfb >> remains. > > Not really. Unless it breaks something in Fedora's repos. The problem is > with vlc, because RPM Fusion can only build against the new directfb if it > appears in Fedora stable Updates repo. Hey, I never said which packages were at fault. I actually complained about the = dependencies instead of >= (which should have not then been a problem). I didn't bother to check which repos built xine-lib or mplayer on my system. Yeup, both were built by ATRPMS. B^) (and it looks like linuxguy123's vlc-extras packages comes from rpmfusion.) And I disagree about other repos not being able to build against a package unless it is in Fedora stable. That's what Fedora updates-testing, atrpms-testing, rpmfusion-free-updates-testing, and rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-testing repos are all about. Then when fedora pushes a package to stable, all the other repos have to do is push their dependent packages to their stable repos as well. Its called planned cooperation. I thought it was already going on. I never had this problem getting a new nvidia or fglrx kernel driver from them any time a new kernel gets released. How is this different? (Maybe because the nvidia and fglrx builders were more diligent about checking updates-testing for upcoming releases?) > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/directfb-1.4.11-3.fc14,xine-lib-1.1.19-2.fc14.2 Wow. 3 for, 3 against, a total Karma of 1, and they pushed to stable (looks like because it had stayed in testing for 7 days. Just because 7 days had lapsed, it doesn't mean the update gets better, does it?) Doesn't seem very overwhelmingly confident.... It looks like they knew there were still problems with the update, and didn't care. OTOH, if they did poke the other maintainers and got no response, I can't blame them very much. Ouch. -- Kevin J. Cummings kjchome@xxxxxxxxxxx cummings@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cummings@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Registered Linux User #1232 (http://counter.li.org) -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
