On 07/11/2012 01:18 PM, Sandro Mani wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Kevin Martin <ktmdms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 07/11/2012 11:42 AM, Sandro Mani wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:12:31 -0500, >>>> Kevin Martin <ktmdms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Two questions: >>>>> >>>>> 1). How do I get rid of the dependency issues shown below? Do I force the >>>>> update of systemd-libs or do the packages that are >>>>> dependent on libudev need to be updated? >>>> >>>> >>>> I like to keep the latest versions of rawhide packages installed unless it >>>> would require removing something really critical. The way I do a quick check >>>> for what is blocking updates is to run: >>>> yum update -y -v | grep -i fail >>>> Note that sometimes early failures cause later failures so that you really >>>> don't need to remove every package listed. There can also be failures that >>>> don't show up when doing the above. >>>> >>>> My fallback plan is to remove the packages that won't update. >>>> >>>> I track all of the packages I remove and regularly try reinstalling them. >>>> -- >>> Why not just rebuild them in the meantime? I usually simply bump the >>> version by one additional "sub-version" (i.e. >>> vlc-core-2.0.1-1.fc18.x86_64 -> vlc-core-2.0.1-1.1.fc18.x86_64), >>> rebuild with mock, and that's it. >>> >> The funny thing is that while vlc is *one* of the packages that has libudev dependencies there are a whole bunch more non-rpmfusion >> packages that have libudev dependencies as well: >> > [...] > Yeah, but vlc wants libudev.so.0()(64bit), the other ones libudev.so.1()(64bit). > Please explain why that makes any difference in this discussion. I'm not sure I see the relevance; vlc want's the 0 version, the others want the 1 version, so what? Kevin -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
