Rawhide Report wrote:
> Removed package lam
Why was this package removed that late in F12's cycle, causing these broken
dependencies:
> blacs-lam-1.1-33.fc12.i686 requires liblamf77mpi.so.0
> blacs-lam-1.1-33.fc12.i686 requires liblam.so.0
> orsa-lam-0.7.0-11.fc12.i686 requires lam
> scalapack-lam-1.7.5-7.fc12.i686 requires liblam.so.0
> scalapack-lam-1.7.5-7.fc12.i686 requires liblamf77mpi.so.0
> tachyon-lam-0.98.7-1.fc12.i686 requires liblam.so.0
> tachyon-lam-0.98.7-1.fc12.i686 requires liblamf77mpi.so.0
> tachyon-lam-gl-0.98.7-1.fc12.i686 requires liblam.so.0
> tachyon-lam-gl-0.98.7-1.fc12.i686 requires liblamf77mpi.so.0
?
I guess those -lam subpackages can and should be disabled, but at the very
least this should have been properly coordinated.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
