Have you tried asking this question on the rpm mailing list? There are
a large number of people there, including many of the developers, who
may be able to answer your questions.
Incidently, rather than a reinstall, you might try doing an update from
the cd. Don't remember all the details of how; check the man pages or
Maximum RPM - which is out of date except for build purposes.
It would be interesting to discover how this got hosed; the problem
you're reporting of appending a leading / to the front of all names
sounds as if you've either got some non-standard rpm packages or
possibly a misconfigured rpmrc file.
If you haven't already done so, subscribe to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
m>
and describe your situation in detail there. Jeff Johnson, who's the
current primary developer, is an ever-active member of the list.
best
rickf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Ok, so I have to do a Microsoft and reinstall RH6.1 since the RPM
> database has become corrupted and no one seems to know how to fix
> it.... I can deal with that. Now I'm having problems with my other
> 6.1 system and the RPMs, but this is a side effect of the developers
> getting careless, it appears.
> I've tried using AutoRPM to update the installed base on system to the
> latest patch levels, and I get the following: -------------------------
[snip]
> Ok, if AutoRPM can't find those automatically, the easiest thing to do
> is check Freshmeat or Redhat and try to find the missing RPMs so that
> I can solve the missing dependencies problem... and they seem to come
> down, basically, to gnome-libs-1.0.40-1.i386.rpm being the missing
> culprit (it gave many of the other libraries that are mentioned).
> Fine, I'll track down a copy, and install it.... yes, I know, that
> was a development version... but no, you can't GET that version now...
> yet the current NON-development versions require it. They don't think
> about the fact that folks will be starting and trying to upgrade from
> fairly old (the original 6.1 install RPMs) to up-to-date (i.e. gnome
> 1.0.54 or 1.0.55) without having access to the intermediate steps... I
> mean, on an operating system where some folks are still happily
> sitting back at 4.1 and 4.2 when 6.2 is imminent, you'd think folks
> would keep the old RPMs available </rant>.
> Ok <breathing, calming> Anyone out there have a solution to this
> dilemma? I want to try to get the box up to latest and greatest
> standards... and this is frustrating as can be.
--
Rick Forrister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"To get something done a committee should consist of no more than
three people, two of whom are absent." Robert Copeland
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
