Anton Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Which brings up another point. urpmi's dependency check needs to recurse > into packages that it has selected to fulfill depends. Frequently package > abc requires package def. They both require ghi, but abc doesn't list it > as an explicit requires because def does. This works fine if rpm's are > being installed manually, but urpmi handle it as follows (output isn't > exact, but you get the idea): > > $urpmi abc > In order to satisfy dependencies the following packages will be > installed (256k): > abc-1.1.0-1 def-1.2.3-1 > Is it ok? y > Preparing ############################################### > ghi >= 1.3.4 is required by def-1.2.3-1 > > Some dependencies could not be resolved, force?
Such case could happens if urpmi database is not closed on requires (some package have requires unsatisfied by any other package in urpmi database). > > But what would be _really_ useful is the ability to recreate > > installation profiles (already discussed w.r.t. to sungle CD > > installation). But tat is not part of urpmi task. Do you see my post on urpmi Andrej ? We have got some mail problem last friday, check --distrib flag of urpmi.addmedia so. Fran�ois.
