Mailing List Archive

On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 03:04:13PM -0800, Chris Petersen wrote:
> I ran into this while trying to upgrade my redhat 9 box to fedora.. Apt
> wants to remove xmltv, yum returns an error:
>
> Package perl-Tk-TableMatrix needs libpt_linux_x86_r.so.1.6.3, this is
> not available.
>
> (perl-Tk-TableMatrix is required by xmltv)

libpt_linux_x86_r.so.1.6.3 is part of pwlib, which was updated and
moved to bleeding. Not sure what the best way to proceed is. Either
providing a compatibility lib for pwlib (but then I need to make 4 of
them), or move pwlib from bleeding to testing too early.

What do you think?
--
Axel.Thimm@physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-users/attachments/20040224/bab65a00/attachment.bin

> libpt_linux_x86_r.so.1.6.3 is part of pwlib, which was updated and
> moved to bleeding. Not sure what the best way to proceed is. Either
> providing a compatibility lib for pwlib (but then I need to make 4 of
> them), or move pwlib from bleeding to testing too early.

How about just keeping the older version in testing/good/stable? Isn't
it good practice to keep older versions around, anyway? So people can
downgrade if they need to?

--
Chris Petersen
Programmer / Web Designer
Silicon Mechanics: http://www.siliconmechanics.com/
Blade Servers: http://www.siliconmechanics.com/c292/blade-server.php
1U Servers: http://www.siliconmechanics.com/c272/1u-server.php

On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 04:02:20PM -0800, Chris Petersen wrote:
> > libpt_linux_x86_r.so.1.6.3 is part of pwlib, which was updated and
> > moved to bleeding. Not sure what the best way to proceed is. Either
> > providing a compatibility lib for pwlib (but then I need to make 4 of
> > them), or move pwlib from bleeding to testing too early.
>
> How about just keeping the older version in testing/good/stable? Isn't
> it good practice to keep older versions around, anyway? So people can
> downgrade if they need to?

The old version is effectively kept around in the part of the
repository populated by Red Hat's packages.

Unfortunately the current packaging models (in the Red Hat world) do
not really permit a concurrent use of multiple version unless special
handling is applied ("compatibility" packages). It would have been
nice if it were possible to create the compatibility packages right
from the start instead of rebuiling them only du eto a rename
(e.g. foo-1.2 becomes foo12 in order to coexist with foo-2.0).

AFAIK Mandrake has such a model, i.e. run time parts of packages get
right into libfoo12, so that future rebuilds for creating
compatibility packages is not needed).
--
Axel.Thimm@physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-users/attachments/20040224/83197df2/attachment.bin