On Tuesday 05 January 2010 16:50:26 Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: > Anne Wilson wrote: > > For some time now, my CentOS box has been skipping the update of exiv2. > > Yesterday I decided to do something about it, so I removed gwenview, > > digikam, exiv2 and libexiv2. I then reinstalled gwenview and digikam, > > which of course pulled in the two exiv2 packages. The version of exiv2 > > looked surprisingly familiar, but I assumed that the install would pull > > in the latest, so I shouldn't worry. This morning more updates were > > announced, and I found that once again exiv2 was being skipped. > > > > I have put a diagnostic file onto http://filebin.ca/swaoqf/centos2.txt - > > I hope someone here will be able to tell me what is going wrong and what > > I can do about it. Thanks > > I haven't checked your log file but I'm guessing you have both rpmforge > and epel active... I do.
> digikam is not in rpmforge, I suspect you're getting it from epel along > with the exiv2 dep, which is perhaps a lower version than the rpmforge > exiv2? The installed version is exiv2.i386 0.17.1-1.el5.rf and the update version on offer is exiv2.i386 0.19-1.el5.rf They look to me as though they would be from the same repo. > In this case skipping the newer rpmforge exiv2 when updating is expected > and normal (assuming digikam requires the older epel exiv2). > > > Please take this as constructive criticism: you should really try to > post relevant info in your emails, eg you don't even state what centos > version Fair comment - when you've been wrestling with something for some time, including posting on a distro list, it's too easy to forget that not everything relevant has been said in the initial post here. FWIW, the CentOS version is, I think, 5.4. If you want detailed information on digikam and gwenview packages I'll follow up with those. > you use, much less the various exiv2/digikam/whatever versions > you're talking about - which would have been good enough to tell us what > repo a package comes from, as long as the repo respects users and > community members enough to use a repotag. You would certainly get more > useful answers, people don't like to have to guess what your situation > is and clicking on a link to a huge log file should only be a last resort. > I see that. However, we have done some investigation already, to the point where only running 'yum -d9 update exiv\*' was going to tell us any more. On reading the file, Karanbir Singh said <quote> This looks like a repo problem, you should report it to the rpmforge-users list so they can fix it ( although many of the packages from rpmforge are here on this list as well, its still worth reporting to their list ) </quote> Hence the large file for your perusal. I you need information that isn't in that file or this message, please ask and I'll gather it for you. Thanks Anne -- KDE Community Working Group New to KDE Software? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
