yum update

[Net Llama!]

On Tue, 30 May 2006, Rick Sivernell wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2006 15:13:49 -0700
> "Net Llama!" <netllama at linux-sxs.org> wrote:
>
> > On 05/29/2006 02:10 PM, Rick Sivernell wrote:
> > >
> > >  In trying to do a yum update/upgrade I get the following errors:
> >
> > Which is it, an update or an upgrade?
> >
> > >
> > > [root at RSivernell cups]# yum upgrade
> > > ...
> > > ...
> >
> > I'd like to see the full output.
> >
>  the full output is ten minutes long, an sample:

I didn't ask for a sample, I asked for the full output, which you've not
provided.

>
> ...
> ....
> libexif-devel-0.6.12-3.2. 100% |=========================| 4.9 kB
> 00:00 ---> Package libexif-devel.x86_64 0:0.6.12-3.2.1 set to be updated
> ---> Downloading header for notify-daemon to pack into transaction set.
> notify-daemon-0.3.1-9.x86 100% |=========================| 4.9 kB
> 00:00 ---> Package notify-daemon.x86_64 0:0.3.1-9 set to be updated
> --> Running transaction check
> --> Processing Dependency: libssl.so.5 for package: w3c-libwww
> --> Processing Dependency: libcrypto.so.5 for package: w3c-libwww
> --> Processing Dependency: php = 5.0.4-10 for package: php-pear
> --> Processing Dependency: valgrind = 1:2.4.0 for package:
> valgrind-callgrind --> Processing Dependency: libssl.so.5 for package:
> w3c-libwww --> Processing Dependency: php = 5.0.4-10.5 for package:
> php-pear --> Processing Dependency: iiimf-libs for package: iiimf-gtk
> --> Processing Dependency: libiiimp.so.1 for package: iiimf-gtk
> --> Processing Conflict: kudzu conflicts kernel < 2.6.13
> --> Processing Conflict: initscripts conflicts kernel < 2.6.12

The only time I've seen kudzu & initscript conflicts like this is when
trying to do a manual (unsupported) yum upgrade from FC4 to FC5.

> --> Processing Dependency: libcrypto.so.5 for package: w3c-libwww
> --> Processing Dependency: libiiimcf.so.3 for package: iiimf-gtk
> --> Restarting Dependency Resolution with new changes.
> --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait.
> --> Running transaction check
> --> Processing Dependency: libssl.so.5 for package: w3c-libwww
> --> Processing Dependency: libcrypto.so.5 for package: w3c-libwww
> --> Processing Dependency: php = 5.0.4-10 for package: php-pear
> --> Processing Dependency: valgrind = 1:2.4.0 for package:
> valgrind-callgrind --> Processing Dependency: libssl.so.5 for package:
> w3c-libwww --> Processing Dependency: php = 5.0.4-10.5 for package:
> php-pear --> Processing Dependency: iiimf-libs for package: iiimf-gtk
> --> Processing Dependency: libiiimp.so.1 for package: iiimf-gtk
> --> Processing Conflict: kudzu conflicts kernel < 2.6.13
> --> Processing Conflict: initscripts conflicts kernel < 2.6.12
> --> Processing Dependency: libcrypto.so.5 for package: w3c-libwww
> --> Processing Dependency: libiiimcf.so.3 for package: iiimf-gtk
> --> Restarting Dependency Resolution with new changes.
> --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait.
> --> Running transaction check
> Error: Missing Dependency: libiiimcf.so.3 is needed by package iiimf-gtk
> ...
> ....
>
> Ok, this happens for both update or upgrade, and yes it is every time.
> No matter what I update, I get the same response.
>
> yum repos,
> [root at RSivernell ~]# ll /etc/yum.repos.d
> total 88
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root  840 Mar 14 17:20 fedora-core.repo
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root 1549 Mar 14 17:20 fedora-development.repo
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root  780 Mar 14 17:20 fedora-extras-development.repo
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root  763 Mar 14 17:20 fedora-extras.repo
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root  486 Mar 14 17:20 fedora-legacy.repo
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root  790 Mar 14 17:20 fedora-updates.repo
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root  865 Mar 14 17:20 fedora-updates-testing.repo
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root  523 Mar 24 08:25 graysector.repo.sav
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root 1495 Mar 20 23:36 livna-devel.repo
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root 1399 Mar 20 23:36 livna.repo
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root 1546 Mar 20 23:36 livna-testing.repo

That output doesn't really tell me much.  One thing that I noticed,
however, is that your time & date stamps for the fedora specific repo
files match up with those used on FC5, not FC4.

> [root at RSivernell ~]#
>
> > I'm pretty sure that iiimf was obsoleted in FC4 a few weeks ago.
> That may be, but I would like to upgrade to FC5 with xfce4X.

I don't understand what FC5 or xfce has to do with this.  Are you still
running FC4 or FC5 when you're hitting this problem?


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lonni J Friedman                        netllama at linux-sxs.org
LlamaLand				http://netllama.linux-sxs.org