On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 10:43 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:08:46 -0500, Christopher wrote:
> After a "yum update --skip-broken", I now have the following
> kernel-related packages installed:
>
> kernel-debug-2.6.27.5-117.fc10.x86_64
> kernel-debug-debuginfo-2.6.27.5-117.fc10.x86_64
> kernel-debuginfo-2.6.27.5-117.fc10.x86_64
> kernel-debuginfo-common-2.6.27.5-117.fc10.x86_64
> kernel-firmware-2.6.28-0.121.rc7.git5.fc11.noarch
> kernel-headers-2.6.28-0.121.rc7.git5.fc11.x86_64
How did you create this list? The main kernel packages are missing!
rpm -qa | grep kernel | sort
I don't have regular "kernel" installed because "kernel-debug" is
just
the kernel with debugging features enabled, and I have been
experiencing oopses.
> kernel-debug-2.6.27.5-117.fc10.x86_64
> kernel-debug-debuginfo-2.6.27.5-117.fc10.x86_64
These two packages have disappeared in the newer build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=73968
(old:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=70131 )
Could be that these sub-packages are obsolete but have not been
obsoleted
anywhere. It's a common mistake package maintainers do,
especially
since
there is no Fedora policy on strict "Obsoletes". That leads
to broken
dependencies during updates.
OK, I filed this issue as bug 476236.
> kernel-debuginfo-2.6.27.5-117.fc10.x86_64
> kernel-debuginfo-common-2.6.27.5-117.fc10.x86_64
> kernel-firmware-2.6.28-0.121.rc7.git5.fc11.noarch
> kernel-headers-2.6.28-0.121.rc7.git5.fc11.x86_64
>
> 1.) Note that kernel-firmware and kernel-headers are out of sync
with
> the other packages. Should this be allowed by the dependency
checker?
Yes, I think so. If the dependencies are lax, a broad range of
package release is sufficient. The kernel requires a pretty strict
version of kernel-firmware, and glibc-headers only requires sufficient
kernel-headers to be installed.
Filed as bug 476238.
> 2.) From their descriptions, it looks like kernel-headers and
> glibc-headers are only needed if you are compiling code. Are they
safe
> to remove if I know I don't do that sort of thing? If so,
shouldn't
> they have "-devel" in the name? I remove all -devel packages to
keep my
> system clean.
Decide yourself based on the package description.
I'm surprised one can "rpm -e glibc-headers" while keeping glibc-devel
That looks a bit strange.
I'll leave you to file a bug on that if you think it's wrong. I think
I'll remove kernel-headers just to keep things tidy. Thanks for the
sanity check!
-B.