[PlanetCCRMA] Re: Apt problems]

[Fernando Lopez-Lezcano]

On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 09:56, William M. Quarles wrote:
> file /usr/lib/libwx_gtk-2.4.so from install of 
> wxGTK-devel-2.4.2-1.rhfc1.ccrma conflicts with file from package 
> wxGTK-2.4.2-3.fr

This is apparently a packaging error on my part, the .so file should be
in wxGTK as in the fr package. 

Strange that up2date does not resolve this, if you upgrade wxGTK and you
already have wxGTK-devel it should pull the newer wxGTK-devel package as
well, which will obviously have no conflicts with the same version of
the new wxGTK package (from fr). It would seem that up2date is either
checking for conflicts prematurely or it is not trying to download
packages required by the upgraded packages before checking. 

> file /etc/X11/starthere from install of 
> redhat-menus-0.40-1.2.rhfc1.ccrma conflicts with file from package 
> filesystem-2.2.1-5file /usr/share/applications from install of 
> redhat-menus-0.40-1.2.rhfc1.ccrma conflicts with file from package 
> filesystem-2.2.1-5

Again, in this case the redhat-menus is derived from the original redhat
package (with a change in the menu structure to add the Planet CCRMA
menu entries). It should not conflict with anything, or rather it should
have exactly the same conflicts as the original package. 

[MUNCH]

> Up2Date by default checks GPG signatures.  If the packaged aren't 
> signed, it aborts (at least in text mode, but I can't request individual 
> packages in graphical mode).  I tried downloading swh-plugins and got this:
> 
> ****
> Name                                    Version        Rel
> *----------------------------------------------------------
> swh-plugins                             0.4.11         1.rhfc1.ccrma 
>     i686
> 
> 
> Testing package set / solving RPM inter-dependencies...
> ########################################
> swh-plugins-0.4.11-1.rhfc1. ########################## Done.
> fftw3-3.0.1-1.rhfc1.ccrma.a ########################## Done.
> The package fftw3-3.0.1-1.rhfc1.ccrma is not signed with a GPG 
> signature.  Aborting...
> Package fftw3-3.0.1-1.rhfc1.ccrma does not have a GPG signature.
>   Aborting...
> ****
> 
> I'm guessing that you still have some unsigned packages lying around?

You are correct. I did not start signing from the beginning so some old
packages don't have signatures. I have to find the time to slowly sign
old packages (not all at the same time to avoid huge syncs in the
mirrors) - I just checked and fc1 has a lot of unsigned packages...
Sorry for the additional problem...

Thanks for the report!
-- Fernando