Anne Wilson wrote:
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
OK, here's the situation AFAICT, based on one of my systems where
digikam from epel is installed:
digikam (digikam-0.9.5-1.el5.x86_64 from epel) requires libkexiv2.so.3 .
ŧhis is provided by the epel libkexiv2-0.1.7-1.el5.x86_64 , which
requires libexiv2.so.4 .
The older rpmforge exiv2-0.17.1-1.el5.rf.x86_64 version provides this,
while the newer exiv2-0.19-1.el5.rf.x86_64 provides libexiv2.so.6
instead (note the version difference).
Therefore installing digikam from epel pulls in the older exiv2 from
rpmforge, instead of the newer one (which would not meet the libkexiv2
dependency, hence libkexiv2 and digikam could not be installed).
Conclusion: your system is fine as is, if you want digikam you need to
keep the older exiv2. Skipping the exiv2 update is ok. It will only be a
problem if at some point you want to install something that requires the
newer libexiv2.so.6 .
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users
