On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Ibukun Olumuyiwa wrote: > > > On Wed, 2003-01-01 at 21:39, Ibukun Olumuyiwa wrote:
> >> Anyways...and I hope the Mozilla maintainer(s) take note of this: The > >> dependencies in that rpm need to be fixed. I'm not sure which it is, > >> whether glibc or GTK, but upgrading both of those packages fixed the > >> problem for me. There's no reason why any upgrade should fail if all > >> dependencies are correctly resolved. > >> > > I don't think you read my post completely. The problem is not with urpmi. > The problem is with the mozilla rpm itself. The rpm needs to be updated > with new dependencies. That's exactly what I'm ranting about. > The dependencies are fine for the distribution it is intended for. It is virtually impossible to keep all packages perfect for all distributions, heck, it's difficult just keeping some packages working well on just the supported distros. Is it really worthwhile (financially) to keep people who are (against recommendations) runnning some unknown mismatch of packages that only semi-resembles any Mandrake release? Rebuild the SRPM on your system, and then post back. Dynamic (ie output from ldd) dependencies are supposed to do this, assuming authors bump the major version o f their libraries when they break something. So go file a bug in Gnome bugzilla (or wherever best) about it if your own build works. Of course, you're on your own building the SRPM ... Buchan -- |----------------Registered Linux User #182071-----------------| Buchan Milne Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work +27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7
