On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 08:49:29AM -0200, Paulo Cavalcanti wrote: > On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Paulo Cavalcanti <pro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > rpm -qpi nvidia-graphics310.19-libs-310.19-151.fc17.x86_64.rpm --provides > x86_64 is fine, but i686 is still wrong (my fault). > This is the right code: > > %ifarch x86_64 > Provides: libnvcuvid.so()(64bit) > %else > Provides: libnvcuvid.so <------------------------------ > %endif
I undid all the special treatment for libnvcuvid.so, I think it's OK now, or not? > Previously, it was "Provides: libnvcuvid.so()". The extra () generated a > wrong provides. > > Anyway, the packages will never upgrade to a newer version using yum, > because of these two files without version: Thanks, fixed! > lstrpm nvidia-graphics310.19-310.19-152.fc17.x86_64.rpm > /usr/bin/nvidia-bug-report-310.19.sh > /usr/bin/nvidia-cuda-proxy-control <---------------- > /usr/bin/nvidia-cuda-proxy-server <---------------- > /usr/bin/nvidia-debugdump-310.19 > /usr/bin/nvidia-settings-310.19 > /usr/bin/nvidia-smi-310.19 > /usr/bin/nvidia-xconfig-310.19 > > ...... > > As I said before, this happened in the past with the devel package, but > very few people needed it any way. However, it is different, now. Unless > these two files are supplied > in a separated package, (and very few people will install it), the upgrade > will have to be performed in a "forced" way. > > Axel, would you have a better suggestion? > > Well, I wish a happy new year for everybody, full of updated packages. > > Thank you all for all of the work for making ATrpms a better repo. > > -- > Paulo Roma Cavalcanti > LCG - UFRJ > _______________________________________________ > atrpms-devel mailing list > atrpms-devel@atrpms.net > http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net _______________________________________________ atrpms-devel mailing list atrpms-devel@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-devel
