It's not:

# urpmi gcc-3.0
To satisfy dependencies, the following packages are going to be
installed (25 MB):
libstdc++3.0-3.0.2-1mdk gcc3.0-3.0.2-1mdk
libstdc++3.0-devel-3.0.2-1mdk gcc3.0-c++-3.0.2-1mdk
gcc3.0-colorgcc-3.0.2-1mdk gcc3.0-cpp-3.0.2-1mdk libgcc3.0-3.0.2-1mdk
Is it ok? (Y/n) y
installing
/mnt/cooker/cooker/cooker//Mandrake/RPMS/gcc3.0-cpp-3.0.2-1mdk.i586.rpm
/mnt/cooker/cooker/cooker//Mandrake/RPMS/gcc3.0-3.0.2-1mdk.i586.rpm
/mnt/cooker/cooker/cooker//Mandrake/RPMS/gcc3.0-colorgcc-3.0.2-1mdk.i586.rpm
/mnt/cooker/cooker/cooker//Mandrake/RPMS/libgcc3.0-3.0.2-1mdk.i586.rpm
/mnt/cooker/cooker/cooker//Mandrake/RPMS/libstdc++3.0-devel-3.0.2-1mdk.i586.rpm
/mnt/cooker/cooker/cooker//Mandrake/RPMS/gcc3.0-c++-3.0.2-1mdk.i586.rpm
/mnt/cooker/cooker/cooker//Mandrake/RPMS/libstdc++3.0-3.0.2-1mdk.i586.rpm
Preparing...
##################################################
file /lib/cpp from install of gcc3.0-cpp-3.0.2-1mdk conflicts with
file from package gcc-cpp-2.96-0.67mdk
Installation failed

I think the problem lies herein:

$ rpm -qvl gcc-cpp-2.96
lrwxrwxrwx    1 root    root               12 Nov  9 00:44 /lib/cpp -> /usr/bin/cpp
-rwxr-xr-x    1 root    root                0 Nov  9 00:44 /usr/bin/cpp
-rwxr-xr-x    1 root    root            90332 Nov  9 00:44 /usr/bin/cpp-2.96
-rwxr-xr-x    1 root    root           104860 Nov  9 00:44 
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-mandrake-linux-gnu/2.96/cpp0
-rwxr-xr-x    1 root    root            53292 Nov  9 00:44 
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-mandrake-linux-gnu/2.96/tradcpp0
-rw-r--r--    1 root    root            27828 Nov  9 00:44 /usr/man/man1/cpp.1
[brian@pc brian]$ ls -l /lib/cpp
lrwxrwxrwx    1 root     root           25 Nov 10 00:54 /lib/cpp -> 
/etc/alternatives/lib_cpp*

The rpm has a link for /lib/cpp (to /usr/bin/cpp) even though it is
reset using the "alternatives" hook.  If both packages used
alternatives and at least one of them "versioned" their files
(/usr/bin/cpp3.0 for instance) having 2.96 and 3.0 (and 2.95 once I
build the SRPM!) installed in parallel should be "RPMable" at least.

Thots?

b.


-- 
Brian J. Murrell

Reply via email to