On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Paul Lussier wrote:
Is there ever a case where RPM will know about something *not* installed
via RPM?
I've heard rumor that it will discover shared library files at locations
pointed to by /etc/ld.so.conf, but I have never confirmed this. I suspect
the rumor is bogus,
I guess what we are all saying is that using RPM or any package manager is
like using a checkbook balancing program. If you are diligent and thorough
in it's use, it can provide great rewards. If you aren't, it is pretty
worthless.
Rich Cloutier
President, C*O
SYSTEM SUPPORT SERVICES
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Rich C wrote:
I guess what we are all saying is that using RPM or any package manager
is like using a checkbook balancing program. If you are diligent and
thorough in it's use, it can provide great rewards. If you aren't, it is
pretty worthless.
I wouldn't go that far.
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Greater NH Linux Users' Group [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: rpm question
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Rich C wrote:
I guess what we are all saying is that using RPM or any package manager
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rich C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: rpm question
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Rich C wrote:
For example, what if you try to install a new slick version of some
Window manager
On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 02:34:52PM -0500, Rich C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As long as you manage your libraries, tools, and all lower level utilities,
daemons, and programs with RPM too. For example, what if you try to install
a new slick version of some Window manager that requires XFree86
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rich C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: rpm question
On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, Rich C wrote:
My point is there is WAY more than just the managed packages that need
to be managed
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Tom Rauschenbach wrote:
I downloaded a package ( kisocd-0.6.3) and tried to compile it. When it
wouldn't , I returned to its web page to find that sure enough it won't build
with autoconf 2.5 which is of course what I have.
As others have said, your best bet (since you
In a message dated: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 09:03:20 EST
Benjamin Scott said:
If they were not installed via RPM, RPM will generally not know about them.
Is there ever a case where RPM will know about something *not*
installed via RPM? Is there some way to update the database with
package info
On Wed, 26 Dec 2001, Paul Lussier wrote:
In a message dated: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 09:03:20 EST
Benjamin Scott said:
If they were not installed via RPM, RPM will generally not know about them.
Is there ever a case where RPM will know about something *not*
installed via RPM? Is there
I have found rpm2cpio useful.
*
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body.
*
I downloaded a package ( kisocd-0.6.3) and tried to compile it. When it
wouldn't , I returned to its web page to find that sure enough it won't build
with autoconf 2.5 which is of course what I have.
So I downloaded the rpm. I have never used rpm before. It complains that
there are a
In a message dated: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 18:27:59 EST
Tom Rauschenbach said:
I downloaded a package ( kisocd-0.6.3) and tried to compile it. When it
wouldn't , I returned to its web page to find that sure enough it won't build
with autoconf 2.5 which is of course what I have.
You could upgrade
- Original Message -
From: Tom Rauschenbach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 6:27 PM
Subject: rpm question
I downloaded a package ( kisocd-0.6.3) and tried to compile it. When it
wouldn't , I returned to its web page to find that sure enough
Okay,
Maybe I'm missing something intuitively obvious here, but how does one upgrade
rpm *with* rpm?
$ rpm -Uvh rpm-4.0-4.i386.rpm
only packages with major numbers = 3 are supported by this version of RPM
error: rpm-4.0-4.i386.rpm cannot be installed
$ rpm -Uvh --force
Danger, danger, Will Robinson! This can lead to all sorts of fun.
1) BE SURE TO KEEP A COPY OF YOUR RPM 3.0! You may very well need it.
2) You *can* download a copy of RPM 4.0 that was packaged with 3.0 at
www.rpm.org -- I have yet to successfully upgrade, however, and I've
*tried*. If
go to the updates directory for RedHat 6.2, there you will find RPM-3.0.5
RPMs (in RPM 3 format! ). Install those, then you'll be able to install
RPMs packaged in V4.
--rdp
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, mike ledoux wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Paul Lussier wrote:
Okay,
Maybe I'm missing
I personally prefer SuSE. Caldera is good for the first time newbie, but
lacks many things, such as emacs. SuSE installs are slower than Red Hat
partially because SuSE contains more packages. (6 CDs in all).
tom r wrote:
I'm thinking of replacing my Red Hat with Caldera just because Redhat
I'm trying to install the ViaVoice run time rpm and I'm getting
error: failed dependencies:
libXm.so.1 is needed by ViaVoice_runtime-2.0-1.0
Trouble is I've got this library in
/usr/local/lib/libXm.so.1
/usr/local/LessTif/Motif1.2/lib/libXm.so.1
My guess is that the Motif you installed was not installed via rpm?
Just do one of these:
rpm -ivh --nodeps ViaVoice_runtime-2.0-1.0
--rdp
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, tom r wrote:
I'm trying to install the ViaVoice run time rpm and I'm getting
error: failed dependencies:
libXm.so.1 is
Well, if nothing else works (symlinking, creating the file, ...)
then try running rpm with --nodeps.
tom r wrote:
I'm trying to install the ViaVoice run time rpm and I'm getting
error: failed dependencies:
libXm.so.1 is needed by ViaVoice_runtime-2.0-1.0
Trouble is I've got
21 matches
Mail list logo
