LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Fedora
User Name
Password
Fedora This forum is for the discussion of the Fedora Project.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 09-21-2007, 04:45 AM   #1
Qualimax
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2007
Posts: 5

Rep: Reputation: 0
Question update


Trying to follow the update announcement in Fedora c6 for 4 packages
updates available for XML-commons etc. the update fails. Failed dependencies state xml-commons= 0:1.3.02-0.b2.7jpp.10 to be missing. It is not missing but the name is slightly different, the = fails. So I ask for looking into and if necessary debugging the update. I am looking for the person who is able to judge, and if necessary to debug the new updates jdom, velocity, xerces-j2 and xml-commons.

Qualimax
 
Old 09-21-2007, 06:33 AM   #2
Simon Bridge
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Waiheke NZ
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,211

Rep: Reputation: 197Reputation: 197
what do you mean "the = fails"?

su -c yum upgrade xml-commons

of course, you could remove the package then install the exact one.

f8 coming soon, you'll need the new distro.
 
Old 09-22-2007, 04:21 PM   #3
Qualimax
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2007
Posts: 5

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Bridge View Post
what do you mean "the = fails"?

su -c yum upgrade xml-commons

of course, you could remove the package then install the exact one.

f8 coming soon, you'll need the new distro.
Simon, I removed the package and re-installed. The problem is that on resolving dependencies it gives the error, and in details it says: missing dependency: xml-commons = 0:1.3.02-0.b2.7jpp.10 is needed by package xml-commons-apis.

The file installed by package xml-commons-apis is
xml-commons-1.3.02-0.b2.7pp.10.i386.rpm

You see the slight difference at the beginning of the file, ie = 0: instead of -


I guess this is the cause of the failed dependency.

I sought for the file xml-commons = 0:1.3.02-0.b2.7jpp.10 in the repositories but could not find it.

KS

Last edited by Qualimax; 09-22-2007 at 04:22 PM.
 
Old 09-22-2007, 08:50 PM   #4
Simon Bridge
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Waiheke NZ
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,211

Rep: Reputation: 197Reputation: 197
You've misunderstood.

The = sign means that the required package must be that exact version. As opposed to:
xml-commons > 1.3.02-0.b2.7jpp.10 ... see?

xml-commons-0:1.3.02-0.b2.7jpp.10 is needed
xml-commons-1.3.02-0.b2.7pp.10 is what you have

This is weird... did you copy and paste or is there a typo?

However, you are not the only one with this sort of problem...
https://www.zarb.org/pipermail/jpack...st/011762.html
... read through that thread.

I'd be tempted to uninstall your xml-commons and explicitly install it again by spelling out the full name.

Last edited by Simon Bridge; 09-22-2007 at 08:52 PM.
 
Old 09-23-2007, 02:50 PM   #5
wmakowski
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Ohio
Distribution: Fedora 18, 19, RHL 5.2
Posts: 546

Rep: Reputation: 43
To me this looks like a bug in the rpm. Strange I didn't encounter the same problem when I updated FC6. The 0: should not be part of the version-release string. I did not see it reported on bugzilla, but it seems pretty obvious to me that is the problem. I performed a rpm -qR xml-commons-apis on my system and it showed the same dependency.
Code:
[makowski@gandalf ~]$ rpm -qR xml-commons-apis
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
java-gcj-compat>= 1.0.31
java-gcj-compat>= 1.0.31
libc.so.6
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)
libdl.so.2
libgcc_s.so.1
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)
libgcj_bc.so.1
libm.so.6
libpthread.so.0
librt.so.1
libz.so.1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
xml-commons = 0:1.3.02-0.b2.7jpp.10
It is also interesting to note that Fedora 7 doesn't have this dependency. It looks like they reorganized the packages and made xml-commons a part of xml-commons-apis.

Bill
 
Old 09-24-2007, 02:00 AM   #6
Simon Bridge
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Waiheke NZ
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 9,211

Rep: Reputation: 197Reputation: 197
So report it as a bug?
I have seen that 0: as part of a filename in other posts - though I, too, was skeptical. Possibly removing the old package entirely, then reinstalling after the update, will get the newer configuration installed?

Of course - it could still be a typo...
 
Old 09-24-2007, 03:06 AM   #7
chrism01
Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Sydney
Distribution: Centos 6.5, Centos 5.10
Posts: 16,261

Rep: Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028
I found that that the xerces rpm seemed to be the root cause, so I ignored that update for a while.
Eventually, they seemd to fix it and it all loaded in (otherwise if i tried to remove xml-common it wanted to remove the whole of Open Office grrrrr).
Currently I'm having a similar prob with the 'velocity' update. I'm going to ignore that for as long as poss unless someone has a definite 'fix' to load it.
I'm a bit miffed though, given this is a stock FC6 with only their updates. I haven't customised the system, so the auto-updates ought to work 1st time.
Be nice if they did some testing before releasing this stuff.
 
Old 09-24-2007, 12:52 PM   #8
wmakowski
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Ohio
Distribution: Fedora 18, 19, RHL 5.2
Posts: 546

Rep: Reputation: 43
My FC6 system is for the most part stock too. I'm still not sure why I did not have issues during update. Do you have any other yum repositories that could be conflicting? What messages are you getting with the velocity update? I'm also curious what versions are repoted when you enter rpm -qa | grep xml-commons.

My thoughts would be to report this as a bug. I had a dependency issue from a standard package once before. It was caused by incorrect entries in the rpm and the Fedora folks took care of it. I was actually able to do a work around before the fix by installing packages in a certain sequence. However, in this case I'm not sure if it is possible to go that route.

Bill
 
Old 10-21-2007, 11:23 AM   #9
Qualimax
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2007
Posts: 5

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmakowski View Post
My FC6 system is for the most part stock too. I'm still not sure why I did not have issues during update. Do you have any other yum repositories that could be conflicting? What messages are you getting with the velocity update? I'm also curious what versions are repoted when you enter rpm -qa | grep xml-commons.

My thoughts would be to report this as a bug. I had a dependency issue from a standard package once before. It was caused by incorrect entries in the rpm and the Fedora folks took care of it. I was actually able to do a work around before the fix by installing packages in a certain sequence. However, in this case I'm not sure if it is possible to go that route.

Bill
The problem I had was caused by the Jpackage.repo.
Disabling it solved the problem. I thank Kam Leo for his help.
KS (Qualimax)
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Problems with NVIDIA drivers after kernel update with yast online update Sheytan Linux - Software 4 05-06-2007 10:27 AM
Red Hat Update Agent freezing, unable to update (FC4) Malakye Fedora 1 12-09-2005 08:02 PM
redhat linux update databse's type and utility like windows update services kamii47 Linux - General 1 04-18-2005 05:50 AM
Problems with NVIDIA drivers after kernel update with yast online update Sheytan Linux - Distributions 0 10-13-2004 11:01 AM
write an update query in shell prompt to update the database in sqlserver suchi_s Programming 2 09-29-2004 07:27 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:04 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration