Re: Is RPM now stricter about checking for file conflicts?

2012-11-01 Thread Michel Alexandre Salim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 31/10/2012 21:38, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 10/29/2012 04:06 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/29/2012 05:39 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: On 2012-10-29, Michel Alexandre Salim

Re: Is RPM now stricter about checking for file conflicts?

2012-10-31 Thread Panu Matilainen
On 10/29/2012 04:06 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/29/2012 05:39 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: On 2012-10-29, Michel Alexandre Salim sali...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On 10/28/2012 04:08 AM, Paul Howarth wrote: Is there any RPM-fu I can use to

Re: Is RPM now stricter about checking for file conflicts?

2012-10-29 Thread Petr Pisar
On 2012-10-29, Michel Alexandre Salim sali...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On 10/28/2012 04:08 AM, Paul Howarth wrote: Is there any RPM-fu I can use to extract the ownership and permissions from the package for comparison? rpm -q -lv -p foo.rpm -- Petr -- devel mailing list

Re: Is RPM now stricter about checking for file conflicts?

2012-10-29 Thread Michel Alexandre Salim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/29/2012 05:39 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: On 2012-10-29, Michel Alexandre Salim sali...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On 10/28/2012 04:08 AM, Paul Howarth wrote: Is there any RPM-fu I can use to extract the ownership and permissions from the package

Re: Is RPM now stricter about checking for file conflicts?

2012-10-28 Thread Michel Alexandre Salim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/28/2012 04:08 AM, Paul Howarth wrote: On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 01:45:43 +0700 Michel Alexandre Salim sali...@fedoraproject.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 (originally posted to test@; Adam Williamson suggested it

Re: Is RPM now stricter about checking for file conflicts?

2012-10-28 Thread Michel Alexandre Salim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/28/2012 02:55 AM, Sebastian Dyroff wrote: the vbox team is reachable via mailing list see [1] or via freenode in #vbox-dev. You can also contact me if you are unable to reach them. Thanks; will Cc: you when sending the mail. - --

Is RPM now stricter about checking for file conflicts?

2012-10-27 Thread Michel Alexandre Salim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 (originally posted to test@; Adam Williamson suggested it might be more appropriate here) Ever since I started tracking Fedora 18, Google Music Manager is no longer installable, and now Oracle's Virtual Box cannot be installed either (both from

Re: Is RPM now stricter about checking for file conflicts?

2012-10-27 Thread Sebastian Dyroff
Hey, (and if anyone knows who to contact at Google and Oracle's VBox team respectively, that'd be great -- I tried contacting the Music Manager team but the email listed in the RPM bounces, and the support reps that respond through official channels don't even know what Linux is, they sent me

Re: Is RPM now stricter about checking for file conflicts?

2012-10-27 Thread Paul Howarth
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 01:45:43 +0700 Michel Alexandre Salim sali...@fedoraproject.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 (originally posted to test@; Adam Williamson suggested it might be more appropriate here) Ever since I started tracking Fedora 18, Google Music Manager

Re: Is RPM now stricter about checking for file conflicts?

2012-10-27 Thread John5342
On Oct 27, 2012 7:46 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim sali...@fedoraproject.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 (originally posted to test@; Adam Williamson suggested it might be more appropriate here) Ever since I started tracking Fedora 18, Google Music Manager is no

Re: Is RPM now stricter about checking for file conflicts?

2012-10-27 Thread Kevin Kofler
John5342 wrote: Just a wild stab in the dark. Would the UsrMove (specifically the change from an actual folder to a symlink) cause a conflict? The Fedora packages don't own the folders since they are owned by the filesystem package anyway but the external packages could be owning the folders