On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 08:55:43AM -0500, Furnish, Trever G wrote: > Bill Crawford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] spake thusly: > > It's not rocket science. > > ...but it certainly violates the principle of least surprises. "Install"ing > a "depend"ency should satisfy the dependency. If -U accomplishes what -i > does not, that's counter-intuitive, to say the least.
If I remember the thread, one of the problems appeared to be that the package was already installed, but the wrong version. The poster then resolved the dependency by installing a second version, not upgrading the existing version. There is exactly one case that I can think where 2 versions of the same package could or should be installed at the same time, and that's the kernel. For everything else, if you have a version that you need to upgrade, use -U. If it's not there already, use -i. Dependency failures can exist for three reasons: 1) the package isn't installed 2) the package is installed but it's not at a minimum version level 3) the package is installed by it has to be the *exact* version. Resolving 1 is trivial (instal the sucker). 2 is a little more tricky since upgrading may require you to also upgrade other packages. 3 is a bitch some you may break other packages (package A requires exactly dependency version 1 and package B requires exactly dependency version 2 so you're forced to chose if you want run package A or B but can't run both). -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
