Missing package dependencies

[Doctor Who]

I'm getting the following error with FC7t1 when trying to update with yum:

--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Missing Dependency: libk3b.so.2()(64bit) is needed by package k3b-extras
Error: Missing Dependency: libtk8.5.so()(64bit) is needed by package PIL
Error: Missing Dependency: libFLAC++.so.5()(64bit) is needed by package audacity
Error: Missing Dependency: libk3bdevice.so.2()(64bit) is needed by
package k3b-extras
Error: Missing Dependency: libFLAC.so.7()(64bit) is needed by package audacity
Error: Missing Dependency: libtcl8.5.so()(64bit) is needed by package PIL

I can' t say with certainty which repositories are enabled as I set
these up a while back.   For example, I know that atrpms is checked,
but I don't have that repo in /etc/yum.repos.d/

Any help appreciated.

[José Abílio Matos]

On Saturday 24 February 2007 9:45:04 pm Doctor Who wrote:
> Error: Missing Dependency: libtcl8.5.so()(64bit) is needed by package PIL
>
> I can' t say with certainty which repositories are enabled as I set
> these up a while back.   For example, I know that atrpms is checked,
> but I don't have that repo in /etc/yum.repos.d/
>
> Any help appreciated.

PIL is not from Fedora, the equivalent package is python-imaging where this 
problem does not occur. It has been rebuild to take care of tcl/tk downgrade.

[Doctor Who]

On 2/24/07, José Matos  wrote:
> On Saturday 24 February 2007 9:45:04 pm Doctor Who wrote:
> > Error: Missing Dependency: libtcl8.5.so()(64bit) is needed by package PIL
> >
> > I can' t say with certainty which repositories are enabled as I set
> > these up a while back. For example, I know that atrpms is checked,
> > but I don't have that repo in /etc/yum.repos.d/
> >
> > Any help appreciated.
>
> PIL is not from Fedora, the equivalent package is python-imaging where this
> problem does not occur. It has been rebuild to take care of tcl/tk downgrade.

python-imaging library is what is now installed and PIL is shown as an
update (from atrpms).  I suppose I could remove atrpms as a repo...how
is that done?

Also, any ideas on how to resolve the other dependency issues?

Thanks.

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:45:04 -0500, Doctor Who wrote:
> I'm getting the following error with FC7t1 when trying to update with yum:
>
> --> Finished Dependency Resolution
> Error: Missing Dependency: libk3b.so.2()(64bit) is needed by package k3b-extras
> Error: Missing Dependency: libtk8.5.so()(64bit) is needed by package PIL
> Error: Missing Dependency: libFLAC++.so.5()(64bit) is needed by package audacity
> Error: Missing Dependency: libk3bdevice.so.2()(64bit) is needed by
> package k3b-extras
> Error: Missing Dependency: libFLAC.so.7()(64bit) is needed by package audacity
> Error: Missing Dependency: libtcl8.5.so()(64bit) is needed by package PIL
>
> I can' t say with certainty which repositories are enabled as I set
> these up a while back.   For example, I know that atrpms is checked,
> but I don't have that repo in /etc/yum.repos.d/

A fixed Audacity package is in the needsign queue.

[Doctor Who]

On 2/24/07, Michael Schwendt  wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 16:45:04 -0500, Doctor Who wrote:
> > I'm getting the following error with FC7t1 when trying to update with yum:
> >
> > --> Finished Dependency Resolution
> > Error: Missing Dependency: libk3b.so.2()(64bit) is needed by package k3b-extras
> > Error: Missing Dependency: libtk8.5.so()(64bit) is needed by package PIL
> > Error: Missing Dependency: libFLAC++.so.5()(64bit) is needed by package audacity
> > Error: Missing Dependency: libk3bdevice.so.2()(64bit) is needed by
> > package k3b-extras
> > Error: Missing Dependency: libFLAC.so.7()(64bit) is needed by package audacity
> > Error: Missing Dependency: libtcl8.5.so()(64bit) is needed by package PIL
> >
> > I can' t say with certainty which repositories are enabled as I set
> > these up a while back.   For example, I know that atrpms is checked,
> > but I don't have that repo in /etc/yum.repos.d/
>
> A fixed Audacity package is in the needsign queue.
>
> --
> fedora-test-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe:
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

Ok....good to know.  And k3b-extras?

Thanks.

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:35:08 -0500, Doctor Who wrote:
> > > I'm getting the following error with FC7t1 when trying to update with yum:
> > >
> > > --> Finished Dependency Resolution
> > > Error: Missing Dependency: libk3b.so.2()(64bit) is needed by package k3b-extras
> Ok....good to know.  And k3b-extras?

k3b 1.0* is ABI-incompatible with k3b 0.12.*

After several weeks of sitting in CVS in form of 1.0rc6 it was built and
released into Rawhide without a warning. So, k3b-extras needs an
update, too.

[Rex Dieter]

Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:35:08 -0500, Doctor Who wrote:
> > Ok....good to know.  And k3b-extras?
>
> k3b 1.0* is ABI-incompatible with k3b 0.12.*
>
> After several weeks of sitting in CVS in form of 1.0rc6 it was built and
> released into Rawhide without a warning. So, k3b-extras needs an
> update, too.

I had suggested in the merge review for k3b that it (basically)
Obsoletes: k3b-extras < %{version}

If that doesn't happen in a timely manner, perhaps we could simply
remove k3b-extras from devel/rawhide.

-- Rex

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:36:51 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:35:08 -0500, Doctor Who wrote:
> > > Ok....good to know.  And k3b-extras?
> >
> > k3b 1.0* is ABI-incompatible with k3b 0.12.*
> >
> > After several weeks of sitting in CVS in form of 1.0rc6 it was built and
> > released into Rawhide without a warning. So, k3b-extras needs an
> > update, too.
>
> I had suggested in the merge review for k3b that it (basically)
> Obsoletes: k3b-extras < %{version}
>
> If that doesn't happen in a timely manner, perhaps we could simply
> remove k3b-extras from devel/rawhide.

And break upgrades from FC <= 6? Not an option, IMO.

Obsoleting k3b-extras OR upgrading it is a MUSTFIX issue.

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 15:58:35 +0100
[e-mail] (Michael Schwendt) wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:36:51 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:35:08 -0500, Doctor Who wrote:
> > > > Ok....good to know.  And k3b-extras?
> > >
> > > k3b 1.0* is ABI-incompatible with k3b 0.12.*
> > >
> > > After several weeks of sitting in CVS in form of 1.0rc6 it was
> > > built and released into Rawhide without a warning. So, k3b-extras
> > > needs an update, too.
> >
> > I had suggested in the merge review for k3b that it (basically)
> > Obsoletes: k3b-extras < %{version}
> >
> > If that doesn't happen in a timely manner, perhaps we could simply
> > remove k3b-extras from devel/rawhide.
>
> And break upgrades from FC <= 6? Not an option, IMO.
>
> Obsoleting k3b-extras OR upgrading it is a MUSTFIX issue.

+1.

FWIW, a rebuild of k3b-extras here in mock works fine. 
Why not bump the release and rebuild for now?

Once the main k3b can obsolete this there will be no reason to rebuild,
but until then, you should keep current to avoid broken dependencies.

kevin

[Rex Dieter]

Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 15:58:35 +0100
> [e-mail] (Michael Schwendt) wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:36:51 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > > I had suggested in the merge review for k3b that it (basically)
> > > Obsoletes: k3b-extras < %{version}
> > > If that doesn't happen in a timely manner, perhaps we could simply
> > > remove k3b-extras from devel/rawhide.
> > And break upgrades from FC <= 6? Not an option, IMO.
> > Obsoleting k3b-extras OR upgrading it is a MUSTFIX issue.
>
> +1.
>
> FWIW, a rebuild of k3b-extras here in mock works fine. 
> Why not bump the release and rebuild for now?

It'll take more than a simple rebuild, but an upgrade from 0.12 ->
1.0rc, which isn't worth it, imo, for package whose lifetime would be
measured in days/weeks.

-- Rex