For some time now updates on my CentOS box had skipped exiv2. Yesterday I decided to do something about it, so I removed it - together with gwenview, digikam and, IIRC, libexiv2. That sounded reasonable, so I accepted the removal, then re-installed gwenview and digikam, which, of course, pulled in the two exiv2 packages. The version number of exiv2 sounded familiar, but I assumed that it would bring in the best-match version, and continued. This morning, seeing that more updates were announced, I ran update again. To my surprise, exiv2 was skipped, as before.
I'm curious as to what could be happening here.
Anne
On 01/05/2010 10:41 AM, Anne Wilson wrote:
assumed that it would bring in the best-match version, and continued. This morning, seeing that more updates were announced, I ran update again. To my surprise, exiv2 was skipped, as before.
I'm curious as to what could be happening here.
yum clean metadata; yum repolist ; yum -d9 list exi*
might give you some clues as to whats going on.
On Tuesday 05 January 2010 10:57:30 Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 01/05/2010 10:41 AM, Anne Wilson wrote:
assumed that it would bring in the best-match version, and continued. This morning, seeing that more updates were announced, I ran update again. To my surprise, exiv2 was skipped, as before.
I'm curious as to what could be happening here.
yum clean metadata; yum repolist ; yum -d9 list exi*
might give you some clues as to whats going on.
That gives
Installed Packages exiv2.i386 0.17.1-1.el5.rf installed Available Packages exiftags.i386 1.01-1.el5.rf rpmforge exim.i386 4.63-3.el5 base exim-doc.noarch 4.63-2.el5 base exim-mon.i386 4.63-3.el5 base exim-sa.i386 4.63-3.el5 base exiv2.i386 0.19-1.el5.rf rpmforge exiv2-debuginfo.i386 0.17.1-1.el5 epel- debuginfo exiv2-devel.i386 0.19-1.el5.rf rpmforge
rpmforge.repo is enabled, but is priority 5 - could this be a priority problem?
Anne
On 01/05/2010 12:00 PM, Anne Wilson wrote:
yum clean metadata; yum repolist ; yum -d9 list exi*
exiv2-devel.i386 0.19-1.el5.rf rpmforge
rpmforge.repo is enabled, but is priority 5 - could this be a priority problem?
the -d9 should give you a lot more info, lots lots more. You'll need to parse that to work out whats going on - or put it on pastebin.centos.org and post the url here in the mailthread. Someone might be able to help with details.
It should only have package info, but some people consider that a privacy issue. To be honest, if you look through the output, it should not be hard working out whats going on
On 01/05/2010 12:06 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
yum clean metadata; yum repolist ; yum -d9 list exi*
erm, i said 'list' but meant 'update'. you want to yum -d9 update exiv*
- KB
On Tuesday 05 January 2010 12:10:44 Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 01/05/2010 12:06 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
yum clean metadata; yum repolist ; yum -d9 list exi*
erm, i said 'list' but meant 'update'. you want to yum -d9 update exiv*
Oops - so the output I already posted is irrelevant. The new output is at http://filebin.ca/swaoqf/centos2.txt
Anne
On 01/05/2010 02:49 PM, Anne Wilson wrote:
Oops - so the output I already posted is irrelevant. The new output is at http://filebin.ca/swaoqf/centos2.txt
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 )
On Tuesday 05 January 2010 15:04:27 Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 01/05/2010 02:49 PM, Anne Wilson wrote:
Oops - so the output I already posted is irrelevant. The new output is at http://filebin.ca/swaoqf/centos2.txt
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 )
OK, thanks. I'll do that.
Anne
On Tuesday 05 January 2010 12:10:44 Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 01/05/2010 12:06 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
yum clean metadata; yum repolist ; yum -d9 list exi*
erm, i said 'list' but meant 'update'. you want to yum -d9 update exiv*
I should also add that I use skip-broken routinely, and I tried
package-cleanup --problems package-cleanup --dupes and rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
without result.
Anne
On Tuesday 05 January 2010 12:06:54 Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 01/05/2010 12:00 PM, Anne Wilson wrote:
yum clean metadata; yum repolist ; yum -d9 list exi*
exiv2-devel.i386 0.19-1.el5.rf rpmforge
rpmforge.repo is enabled, but is priority 5 - could this be a priority problem?
the -d9 should give you a lot more info, lots lots more. You'll need to parse that to work out whats going on - or put it on pastebin.centos.org and post the url here in the mailthread. Someone might be able to help with details.
It should only have package info, but some people consider that a privacy issue. To be honest, if you look through the output, it should not be hard working out whats going on
Sorry - it had scrolled off the screen and I hadn't realised just how much there is - almost 2000 lines. I've posted the output to http://filebin.ca/ggqvkc/centos.txt
When I first set up CentOS I had seen what havoc conflicting repos could do, so I tried to set up fairly tight priorities. Maybe I got some of them wrong. All the same, from that output I can't understand what's happening, so I'd be glad of the help. I don't think the 0.19-1 package is among those excluded.
Anne
Anne Wilson wrote:
For some time now updates on my CentOS box had skipped exiv2. Yesterday I decided to do something about it, so I removed it - together with gwenview, digikam and, IIRC, libexiv2. That sounded reasonable, so I accepted the removal, then re-installed gwenview and digikam, which, of course, pulled in the two exiv2 packages. The version number of exiv2 sounded familiar, but I assumed that it would bring in the best-match version, and continued. This morning, seeing that more updates were announced, I ran update again. To my surprise, exiv2 was skipped, as before.
I'm curious as to what could be happening here.
I too had this issue, although my need for exiv2 was gnome-commander. Thus I too removed exiv2 and its dependents. As I did not need the packages I have left them uninstalled. I think the issue is a change in the exiv2 rpm spec file in regards to libraries needed or included, thus as both come from rf - suggest post a request to them. HTH
Anne
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Tuesday 05 January 2010 16:38:01 Rob Kampen wrote:
Anne Wilson wrote:
For some time now updates on my CentOS box had skipped exiv2. Yesterday I decided to do something about it, so I removed it - together with gwenview, digikam and, IIRC, libexiv2. That sounded reasonable, so I accepted the removal, then re-installed gwenview and digikam, which, of course, pulled in the two exiv2 packages. The version number of exiv2 sounded familiar, but I assumed that it would bring in the best-match version, and continued. This morning, seeing that more updates were announced, I ran update again. To my surprise, exiv2 was skipped, as before.
I'm curious as to what could be happening here.
I too had this issue, although my need for exiv2 was gnome-commander. Thus I too removed exiv2 and its dependents. As I did not need the packages I have left them uninstalled. I think the issue is a change in the exiv2 rpm spec file in regards to libraries needed or included, thus as both come from rf - suggest post a request to them. HTH
Thanks. I've mailed them. My CentOS box spends most of its time doing quite mundane file/print/IMAP serving. Just occasionally I have something that needs a bit more oomph than this laptop can manage, and I turn to the CentOS box for those. It's relatively rare, so this hasn't been a high priority for me - just a niggle.
Anne
-
Anne Wilson -
Karanbir Singh -
Rob Kampen