On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 05:00:17PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 16:20:25 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > > > Update: synaptic.i386 0:0.55.3-2 - extras > > > > <snip> > > > > > Transaction Check Error: package apt-0.5.15cnc6-53.4.rhfc3.at (which is newer than apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362) is already installed > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > Check the requirements of the synaptic yum wants to update > > > > check the provides of the apt you currently have installed. > > > > you have apt from atrpms installed... you dont have atrpms in the yum > > > > repository information that you loaded.... > > > > > > > > Looks like a packaging conflict from using multiple repositories to > > > > me. I don't see how this qualifies as a yum problem considering that > > > > yum isn't going to downgrade packages as a matter of design. > > > > > > synaptic requires libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0, which is only provided by > > > apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362 in Phil's configured set of repositories. > > > > What makes you think so? > > Two things make me think that: 1) In the set of enabled repositories, only > the apt package in "extras" provides 'libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.2'. You originally mentioned libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0, now it's suddenly libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.2? The latest official upstream release has a major of 0. Probably fedora.us has a development version. Which brings up the old question of how to ensure proper rpm ordering of in-between releases snapshots. And BTW what happened to fedora.us' standpoint of avoiding snapshots like the devil (a good standpoint IMHO)? Not only from a packaging POV. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpvtoTUB8BNk.pgp
Description: PGP signature