Custom Query (344 matches)
Results (58 - 60 of 344)
Ticket | Resolution | Summary | Owner | Reporter |
---|---|---|---|---|
#43 | fixed | Can't upgrade libc-devel to 0.6.5 after binutils-devel 2.21 | ||
Description |
I suspect this is a repository issue and not a yum or rpm thing. Please bear with me, as I spend much more time with zypper than I do with yum. :-) Attempting the above brings me: Transaction Check Error:
0.i386 conflicts with file from package binutils-devel-2.21-1.oc00.i386
6 conflicts with file from package binutils-devel-2.21-1.oc00.i386
.i386 conflicts with file from package binutils-devel-2.21-1.oc00.i386
.i386 conflicts with file from package binutils-devel-2.21-1.oc00.i386
i386 conflicts with file from package binutils-devel-2.21-1.oc00.i386 Please let me know what else I might be able to do short of uninstalling binutils-devel (which I really don't want to do) and then installing libc-devel. yum is 3.2.27 rpm is 4.8.1 |
|||
#156 | invalid | rpmdb error in bootstrap environment (1.5) | ||
Description |
I'm working on updating the bootstrap packages for i686 and pentium4. All works well, except that at the beginning of the bootstrap console, after a long (really long) delay, the following is thrown: rpmdb: __fop_file_setup: Retry limit (100) exceeded error: cannot open Sigmd5 index using db3 - File exists (17) Note that my changes have had no bearing on the above; I get that error just using the pentium4 1.5 bootstrap with no changes. I've tried updating rpm, rpm-libs, urpo, gettext (newer rpm needs intl8), but I'm still missing something to update rpm fully, so I haven't tested whether rpm 4.8.1 might resolve the above. There seems to be something broken in the db laid down from the bootstrap, though. After the delay and the error, yum install yum now works as expected, and after a reboot, we have a working i686 (or pentium4) setup. The delay is annoying, though. Any thoughts? |
|||
#157 | fixed | ash-sh-0.0.1-1 summary is in error (references DASH as default shell) | ||
Description |
The spec file for ash-sh-0.0.1-1 seems to be in error. The summary is the same as that for the DASH-sh package (the description is correct, however). ;-) |