On 04/08/2011 01:05 AM, Manuel Escudero wrote: > > > 2011/4/8 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx>> > > On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 21:36:20 -0700, JD wrote: > > > >> So stick to one third party repo instead of atleast stop using > > >> conflicting repos. Mplayer and vlc are both in RPM Fusion. > > > It seems the failure is to enable rpmfusion _after_ atrpms. > > > > > > Plus, it's a mistake to install atrpms' "libmad" explicitly > instead of > > > letting Yum (or other depsolvers) pull in whatever provides the > > > libmad.so.0 library. At atrpms' it's the "libmad0" package. > > > > > > If one starts with rpmfusion, one gets libmad-0.15.1b-13.fc12, and > > > atrpms' libmad-0.15.1b-4.fc14 loses version comparison: 4< 13 > > > > > > [On the contrary, if one starts with atrpms, dependencies on > libmad.so.0 > > > pull in the "libmad0" package, which conflicts with > rpmfusion's libmad > > > pkg. atrpms' libmad package contains no important library.] > > > > > > At rpmfusion, nothing requires the "libmad" package name: > > > > > > $ repoquery --exactdeps --whatrequires libmad > > > libmad-0:0.15.1b-13.fc12.i586 > > > libmad-devel-0:0.15.1b-13.fc12.i586 > > > > > > So, if nothing at atrpms explicitly requires "libmad0" either, > one can > > > stick to rpmfusion's libmad package without ever getting > atrpms' libmad0 > > > package. Anything that wants libmad.so.0 will be happy with > whatever > > > provides that library. > > > > What you say does not make sense re libmad0. To wit: > > > > # rpm -q libmad0 > > libmad0-0.15.1b-4.fc14.i686 > > # rpm -e libmad0-0.15.1b-4.fc14.i686 > > Not what I've asked you to do: "rpm -e libmad" > What you tried to do is to erase a package that contains a needed > shared library. That won't work, of course. > > > I did not manually and explicitly install libmad0. > > No, but libmad. > > > Yum resolved the dependencies of the packages you see above. > > Then please show the results of > > repoquery --exactdeps --whatrequires libmad > > NOT libmad0 (!) and return to what I've written above. The theory is > that if you have just libmad0 and not libmad, you don't have get a > conflict. > -- > users mailing list > users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To unsubscribe or change subscription options: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > > > > Humm, Just did a quick reading... > > You could try (As Root in terminal): > > - yum clean all > > - yum makecache > > - yum -y update > > Hope this helps... > > Cheers! > > > -- > <-Manuel Escudero-> > Linux User #509052 > @GWave: jmlevick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jmlevick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > @Blogger: http://www.blogxenode.tk/ (Xenode Systems Blog) > PGP/GnuPG: DAE3 82E9 D68E 7AE4 ED31 1F8F 4AF4 D00C 50E7 ABC6 > Looks like after deleting the offending rpm for libmad all is well now. Yum check shows no problems and yum update shows no problems. Cheers, JD -- 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
