Le jeudi 03 août 2006 à 00:46 -0700, Robinson Tiemuqinke a écrit :
> It looks like that 64bit FC4 can not diffrentiate
> packages ending with .i386 or .x86_64. when the
> upgrade fails, the error messages are normally like
> the following:
>
> valgrind = 1:2.4.0 is needed by (installed)
> valgrind-callgrind-0.9.11-1.i386
rpm and yum differentiate perfectly between x86_64 and i386, you're
confused by the fact they do not display arch by default to the user
even if they use it internally.
What you need to know is the following
- sometimes an i386 package will depend on another package with the same
arch, so if you try to pull this package under its feet rpm will
complain. In that case if you wish to x86_64ify your package you need to
replace all the packages which depend on the i386 version by x86_64
variants in the same rpm transaction
- both i386 and x86_64 of a package may be installed simultaneously on
the system. However they will share some files transparently, so rpm
will resist updating one but not the other (if you install foo-1.i386
and foo-2.x86_64 chances are their shared files are not identical
anymore). In that case you need to update both i386 & x86_64 versions of
the package in the same run (this is where rpm not displaying arch is
confusing - it will complain of a conflict with foo-1 when updating
foo-1 to foo-2 on only one arch)
- rpm --queryformat "%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.%{ARCH} will display
the arches of the packages installed and remediate most of the confusion
- package-cleanup in yum-utils is a great helper when doing this kind of
migration manually. You can do
a. rpm -qa --queryformat "%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.%{ARCH},
b. remove the packages you don't want with --nodeps or --force (in
whatever order you want)
c. then use package-cleanup to identify the bits you've been to hasty to
remove
(YMMV of course and you're better of doing clean rpm transactions
without forcing. Also if you don't have all the packages ready to
install somewhere you may find out after removing things you can't
install them back)
--
Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
_______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
