On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:29 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Fulko Hew <fulko.hew@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Both vim-common and vim-minimal ship a copy of the vim man page.
> file /usr/share/man/man1/vim.1.gz of vim-common-2:7.4.189-1.fc20.i686
> conflicts with file from package vim-minimal-2:7.4.027-2.fc20.i686
Ordinarily, this does not result in an RPM conflict, since the files
will be identical in both packages.
However, you seem to have different versions of vim-common and
vim-minimal, so the file is not identical, thus resulting in the
conflict. Update vim-minimal to be the same version as vim-common,
and the problem will go away.
Those were the magic words to explain what(s) happened.
To perform my install tests, I always want to start with a virgin system;
so I always reboot a new copy of the live CD, and then do the install
of my package. If anything is wrong, I fix it, rebuild my package, reboot'
a new Live CD, and retest, and repeat, repeat, etc.
Because its a live cd boot, I never do a 'yum update' first.
(Why bother? its a working CD, and yum will pull in any dependencies
_my_ package needs.)
But... my package's post-install routines do add a sudo config value
and so it 'requires' sudo, and the sudo package in turn requires (I think)
the vim-common package, and this new vim-common is/contains a
newer/current version that is incompatible with the version of the
vim-minimal package that was built into the live CD.
I'll test that hypothesis tomorrow at work by updating the live environment
first, before performing the install of _my_ package.
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
