On Tuesday 18 December 2001 10:15 am,Tim Wunder wrote: > Net Llama wrote: > > ...but i suspect you took a > > longer, circuitous route to getting this working than was > > neccesary. > > I wouldn't think so. His problem was that rpm didn't know about the > db version he had installed (or, more specifically, the libdb > version), and as a result didn't know the libdb dependancy was > resolved. I imagine he coulda "--force"'d the install, or "--nodep"'d > it and all woulda been OK.
I would have done that except I was worried that the dependency might have been real and then I would have been without a working rpm. In fact, I DID this with another rpm about 10 minutes later that also had a false "unsatisfied dependency" and --nodeps and --force worked OK. > But, if you're gonna use rpm to install, > you might as well satisfy what it thinks are its dependancies, even > though the dependancies are met and rpm just doesn't know about it. > > As it stands now, rpm knows about his db install, and he's running a > newer version than he was when he started, and he's got a current rpm > version that'll read version 4 rpm's. Seems to me to be worth the > potentially more ciruitous route. > > Tim I'm not complaining ;-) The key thing for me is that I can "back out" this way if I blow it. But it certainly would have been more of a pain if I had not had the eW3.0 CD. Thanks to all!! -- Tony Alfrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I'd rather be sailing" _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
