On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:32:12 -0800, Adam wrote: > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 18:03 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > > ...or what weird third-party package may be preventing libmudflap-devel > > > from getting updated... > > > > Conspiracy theories are not helpful. There have been similarily "weird" > > packages in the Fedora package collection before, too. > > um. It's hardly a conspiracy theory, it's a common cause of this kind of > problem. "Common"? Where do those packages come from? I think your point of view is biased and inappropriate. Over the past months, dependency issues caused by third party packages have not been anything like a hot or regular topic. Much more common have been duplicates, interrupted transactions, upgrade path issues, multi-arch install/repo configuration bugs, and real packaging mistakes in the Fedora package collection. > I did consider mentioning that it can happen with repository > packages too, but didn't bother for brevity. So, you are interested in theories instead of this actual issue? More interesting is to find out what has happened in the scenario Robert has pointed out. He's been a long-time subscriber and Fedora user. Actual trouble-shooting would be more interesting than bashing third parties who are irrelevant unless you can show that they are the culprit. Or are you aware of third-party GCC packages for F-12 that cause such a problem? -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
