https://qa.mandrakesoft.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-01-03 02:15 -------
Hit the commit button too fast...
libgtk+2-devel is provided by libgtk+-x11-2.0_0-devel.
I set this as invalid, but the all thing seems a bit abstruse to me and to urpmf:
$ urpmf --provides libgtk+2-devel
$
Zilch.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
------- Reminder: -------
assigned_to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
description:
A dependency on libgtk+2-devel prevents installing this rpm:
$ rpm -Uvh libgnomecanvas2_0-devel-2.1.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
error: failed dependencies:
libgtk+2-devel >= 2.0.3 is needed by libgnomecanvas2_0-devel-2.1.5-1mdk
$ rpm -q --provides libgtk+2.0_0-devel
libgtk+2.0_0-devel = 2.2.0-1mdk
Versioning headache...
Shouldn't an official rule be adopted that libgtk+2.0_0-devel provides
libgtk+2-devel, libgnomeprintui2-2_0-devel provides libgnomeprintui2-devel, etc.
Look at this one:
$ rpm -qp --provides libgnomeprintui2-2_0-devel-2.1.5-1mdk.i586.rpm
libgnomeprintui-devel = 2.1.5-1mdk
libgnomeprintui2-2-devel = 2.1.5-1mdk <--- duh!
libgnomeprintui2-2_0-devel = 2.1.5-1mdk
It is currently quite difficult to find the correct way to write the rpm
(Build)Requires elements.
