On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:12:22 -0800, Adam wrote: > > 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? > > Thinking about it, perhaps you don't quite understand what I'm saying. > it doesn't have to have anything to do with gcc. All it would require is > for any package to be installed which had dependencies satisfied by the > f11 libmudflap-devel package but not the f12 libmudflap-devel package. > That would cause yum to want to keep the f11 libmudflap-devel package > instead of updating to the f12 one, with the result seen in the initial > post. that was all I was thinking of. That's not how Yum works. It would move the unresolvable dependency to that mysterious package and report its name instead, because it would pull in the libmudflap-devel upgrade into the transaction set. Mind you, that's the most common form of a broken dependency: the attempt at upgrading a package that is still needed by stuff in the local RPM database. -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
