On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 10:25 +0100, Thomas M Steenholdt wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Wednesday 21 February 2007 15:59, Michael Schwendt wrote: > >> Does that depcheck also cover multi-lib? Because except for the > >> first one, I still see these: > >> > >> source rpm: python-virtinst-0.98.0-1.fc6.src.rpm > >> package: python-virtinst - 0.98.0-1.fc6.noarch from > >> fedora-core-updates-6-ppc unresolved deps: > >> libvirt-python >= 0:0.1.4-4 > >> > >> source rpm: bind-9.3.4-2.fc6.src.rpm > >> package: bind-devel - 31:9.3.4-2.fc6.i386 from fedora-core-updates-6-x86_64 > >> unresolved deps: > >> libdns.so.22 > >> libbind9.so.0 > >> libisccc.so.0 > >> liblwres.so.9 > >> libisccfg.so.1 > >> libisc.so.11 > >> > >> source rpm: compiz-0.3.6-2.fc6.src.rpm > >> package: compiz-devel - 0.3.6-2.fc6.i386 from fedora-core-updates-6-x86_64 > >> unresolved deps: > >> libdecoration.so.0 > >> > >> source rpm: kdeedu-3.5.6-0.1.fc6.src.rpm > >> package: kdeedu - 3.5.6-0.1.fc6.i386 from fedora-core-updates-6-x86_64 > >> unresolved deps: > >> libpython2.4.so.1.0 > >> > >> source rpm: kdeutils-3.5.6-0.1.fc6.src.rpm > >> package: kdeutils-devel - 6:3.5.6-0.1.fc6.i386 from > >> fedora-core-updates-6-x86_64 unresolved deps: > >> libkmilo.so.1 > >> libkregexpeditorcommon.so.1 > >> libksimcore.so.1 > >> libkhexeditcommon.so.0 > >> libkcmlaptop.so.0 > >> > >> source rpm: poppler-0.5.4-5.fc6.src.rpm > >> package: poppler-devel - 0.5.4-5.fc6.i386 from fedora-core-updates-6-x86_64 > >> unresolved deps: > >> libpoppler-qt.so.1 > > > > Hrm, I'm not entirely sure, I'll have to defer to Luke Macken on that one. > > > > I'm surprised that these haven't been reported before, people are generally > > really quick to notice broken deps in the updates repos. > > > > > > Fact of the matter is, that even though people should report such > iregularities, it would be a lot less work for everybody, if yum would > update the largest portion of updates that do not have any dependency > problems. I know we've been over this like a thousand times, but I still > see no valid reason not to make yum do this! > > That would cause the 1 or 2 or 3 packages with probles to be held back, > not the rest. > and it would give users very little awareness that something didn't get patched. giving them a false sense of security. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
