On Thu, 20 May 2010, Alfred von Campe wrote:

On a CentOS 5 system, with the rpmforge as the only external repository, and the Subversion 1.6.9 RPM from rpmforge installed, I get the following error when trying to install mod_dav_svn:

# yum install mod_dav_svn
Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, priorities
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
Excluding Packages from CentOS-5 - Base
Finished
Excluding Packages from CentOS-5 - Updates
Finished
639 packages excluded due to repository priority protections
Setting up Install Process
Resolving Dependencies
-->  Running transaction check
---> Package mod_dav_svn.i386 0:1.4.2-4.el5_3.1 set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: subversion = 1.4.2-4.el5_3.1 for package: --> mod_dav_svn
-->  Finished Dependency Resolution
mod_dav_svn-1.4.2-4.el5_3.1.i386 from base has depsolving problems
--> Missing Dependency: subversion = 1.4.2-4.el5_3.1 is needed by package --> mod_dav_svn-1.4.2-4.el5_3.1.i386 (base) Error: Missing Dependency: subversion = 1.4.2-4.el5_3.1 is needed by package mod_dav_svn-1.4.2-4.el5_3.1.i386 (base)
You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
You could try running: package-cleanup --problems
                       package-cleanup --dupes
                       rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest

If I install the RPM with rpm instead of yum, everything works find in apache, but now yum complains about the missing dependency when doing a "yum update". The workaround for me for now is to uninstall the RPM, do a yum update, and then reinstall the RPM. Needless to say, this is not ideal. Is there anything that can be done to fix this or am I doing something wrong?

Are you running an x86_64 system? Does "rpm -q subversion" return two (seemingly identical) entries? If so, the trouble is that you've got i386 and an x86_64 subversion packages installed. Try

rpm -q --qf '%{name}-%{version}.%{release}.%{arch}\n' subversion

In that case, you can probably just delete the 32-bit version and then try the update. (I should say, I've had no difficulties removing the 32-bit packages. There may be good reasons for both to be there, but I don't know what they are.)

--
Paul Heinlein <> [email protected] <> http://www.madboa.com/
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rpmforge.net/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to