A query:
> it's my understanding that you ought to be careful about
> mixing packages from ATrpms and rpmfusion. They tend to cover similar
> areas of application. and individually do it well, but mixing does cause
> problems.
I agree with this, and, as rpmfusion seems to be working hard to be
compatible with "stock" EL, I shall discontinue use of ATrpms in so far
as possible. Hence:
Is there a mechanism to
(1) identify ATrpm rpms that are present on a system
(2) find if the same functionalities exist within rpmfusion
and thus, using (if possible) the Add/Remove Software GUI, disable
ATrpms as a source, delete all of the ATrpms rpms that meet (2) and
replace these with those from rpmfusion?
Such steps would help to address the point raised.
Likewise, I again ask:
Technical question: for a .so file or an executable, ldd will inform as
to the required dependencies. What is the functional equivalent for a
rpm file to ldd, preferably an equivalent that will list both the
dependencies in terms of actual files (e.g., foobar.so.3.7.19-mnj) and
(hopefully) the RPMs from a particular repository (e.g., SL, rpmfusion,
etc., depending upon the distribution that supplied the RPM) that supply
such files?
Yasha Karant
On 07/16/2013 01:12 PM, John Pilkington wrote:
On 16/07/13 20:40, Yasha Karant wrote:
Thank you for that clarification. ATrpms was "required" to get support
for one of the other packages installed and/or applications we needed to
build (I forget which).
Prior to your response, I located the offending RPM and performed a
command line
rpm -e live-2012.02.04-1.el6.x86_64
No other dependencies were displayed upon execution of the above command
(if memory serves, the -e flag will then respond packages A, B, ... need
also to be removed and queries before proceeding if rpm finds such
dependencies), and thus it completed.
vlc 2.0.6 production then did install from RPMfusion, and now does work.
Presumably, if I downloaded the development versions of all of the
packages that vlc 2.0.6 rpm used, I could build vlc 2.0.7 . At the
moment, this is not necessary.
If you insist: but there's a ready-built version in 'testing' that is
unlikely to be worse. I don't think it's likely to explode. You could
always see if it wants to bring in anything that you deem insanitary
before going down the DIY route,
And again, it's my understanding that you ought to be careful about
mixing packages from ATrpms and rpmfusion. They tend to cover similar
areas of application. and individually do it well, but mixing does cause
problems.
(Etiquette: does this list want start or end replies? I have
forgotten.)
Yasha Karant
