[ATrpms-users] Conflict between fedora and atrpms version of lm_sensors

[Axel Thimm]

On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 04:43:06AM -0500, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
> While I use atrpms for a lot of extras not found in fedora proper,
> I prefer to stick with the fedora version when atrpms has a parallel
> version of an existing rpm.
> 
> An example is lm_sensors and sensord.
> However, with the fedora version of lm_sensors
> (lm_sensors-2.10.5-1.fc8.i386.rpm) and sensord
> (lm_sensors-sensord-2.10.5-1.fc8.i386.rpm) installed, I get the
> following error when running 'yum update':
> 
> Error: Missing Dependency: lm_sensors = 2.10.5-52.fc8 is needed by
> package sensord

Probably a side-effect (bug) of the protectbase plugin or similar. If
some filtering decides to remove something from the pool of available
packages it should do so with the depending on it packages as well. If
this si not done you get the bug you observe.

Not that even a perfect implementation of a filtering mechanism (like
smart has) would really solve partial/selective enabling of repos. But
that's another story.

> The problem seems to be that yum is trying to upgrade me to the atrpms
> version of lm_sensors and sensord. Probably, compounding this is that
> fedora calls the sensord package "lm_sensors-sensord" while atrpms
> calls it "sensord".
> 
> So, basically, I have the following three questions:
> 1. How do I get yum to allow upgrades of lm_sensors when the upgrade
>    comes from the same repo as the original (i.e., fedora) but not if it
>    comes from a different repo (e.g., atrpms)?
> 
> 2. Why does atrpms have a different name for the essentially
>    equivalent sensord package from what fedora now calls it?

Because ATrpms has been shipping sensord since more than 5 years and
the Fedora maintainer only did so some few days or weeks ago w/o
checking for existing implementations. :(

> 3. What is causing the specific error and how do I prevent it? (other
>    than manually uninstalling lm_sensors/lm_sensors-sensord and then
>    installing the atrpms version?

I'd file a bug against bugzilla.redhat.com. The maintainer is not
forced to use any given conventions (although that would had been
nice), but at least he/she could Provide/Obsolete the sensord package
in a versioned way to avoind a choking yum.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- 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/20071216/f8e48087/attachment.bin