[NTLUG:Discuss] RPM craziness

Wayne Dahl w.dahl4 at verizon.net
Fri Oct 22 16:07:18 CDT 2004


On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 15:49, Rev. wRy wrote:

> On my shrike box:
> 
> [slot0k at suicide rpm]$ rpm -q rpm
> rpm-4.2-0.69
> [slot0k at suicide rpm]$ ls __*
> __db.001  __db.002  __db.003
> 
> So, yeah, I'd say it's normal.
> 
> I want to say that was answered in the bugzilla - I think it had to do
> with gcc versions, but I am not positive.  It very likely could have
> been a bug in rpm as well.

Ok...I've rebuilt the database...and I'm still getting this error to
yum....

[root at newcomputer New]# yum update
Gathering header information file(s) from server(s)
Server: Red Hat Linux 9 - i386 - Base
Server: Fedora Legacy utilities for Red Hat Linux 9
Server: Red Hat Linux 9 - Updates
Finding updated packages
Downloading needed headers
Resolving dependencies
....Unable to satisfy dependencies
Package kdegraphics-devel needs kdegraphics = 3.1-4, this is not
available.
Package kdegraphics-devel needs kdegraphics = 3.1-5, this is not
available.
Package redhat-config-printer-gui needs redhat-config-printer =
0.6.47-1, this is not available.

A query to rpm for kdegraphics returns the following...

[root at newcomputer New]# rpm -q kdegraphics*
package kdegraphics-3.1-5.i386.rpm is not installed
package kdegraphics-devel-3.1-5.i386.rpm is not installed

Why is this returning what is NOT installed?  I want to know what IS
installed.  Queries to specific packages return the following...

[root at newcomputer New]# rpm -q kdegraphics-3.1-4
kdegraphics-3.1-4
[root at newcomputer New]# rpm -q kdegraphics-devel*
package kdegraphics-devel-3.1-5.i386.rpm is not installed
[root at newcomputer New]# rpm -q kdegraphics-devel-3.1-4
kdegraphics-devel-3.1-4

I'm sure I'm missing something really simple, but it evades me.  Yum
says kdegraphics-3.1-4 is not available...is this different from not
being installed?  According to rpm -q, it looks to be installed.  Is
this  possibly a gcc error?

Thanks again,
-- 
Wayne Dahl
Registered Linux User # 347549
No electrons were abused in any way by any Micro$oft 
product in the composition of this e-mail.




More information about the Discuss mailing list