Jeremy Bertenshaw wrote:

>Hmmmm, rpm -Uvh * has never worked for me in the past upto and including RH7.2, 
>always complained lots about dependencies and never installed anything, case in point 
>being Ximian, downloaded all their rpms and tryed it, no go so went with the nodeps 
>option and it worked.
>
>jeremyb. 
> 
>
>>From: Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Date: 2002/04/09 Tue AM 09:44:53 GMT+12:00
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: Installing kde3.0 -- I need help :(
>>
>>
>>IMHO the rpm -Uvh * approach is better than --nodeps. rpm will analyse
>>the bunch of rpm files you gave it and as long as all dependencies are
>>satisfied within the group, it will install them all.
>>-- 
>>Nick Rout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>

Well, this is what I'm going to do because I am going to upgrade to 
Mandrake-8.2 at the same time:-

1) mount the Mandrake-8.2 cd / iso image.
2) copy contents of entire disk to spare disk space.
3) remove all existing kde-2.2.x rpm files.
4) copy all kde3 rpm files to said spare disk space.
5) copy "install-from-hard-disk" boot image from cd / iso to floppy
6) boot floppy.
7) implore Deities. ( most important )

imho "rpm -Uvh *" won't work for two reasons:-

1) There are _hundreds_ of dependency errors because that command will 
attempt to install the rpms in alphabetical order, and..
2) There will be _hundreds_ of conflicts with the existing kde 
applications you have installed.

You have to remove all the existing kde stuff with the "rpm -e kde-2.2 
<whatever>" command _before attempting to install the new kde3 stuff.

It's best to do all this from a terminal in single user mode.

My personal experience with the rpm system is that you surrender control 
of your computer to the builder of the rpm ( who may or may not be 
competent ). It's therefore a _total_ pain, and I have discovered that 
you are usually much better off compiling new packages from the ground 
up. This is particularly true if said rpm is not instrinsically part of 
the distribution you have installed.

hth.

--
Sincerely etc.,
Christopher Sawtell


Reply via email to