http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060497 Tony Jones <tonyj@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|tonyj@suse.com |bnc-team-screening@forge.pr | |ovo.novell.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060497 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060497#c1 --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška <martin.liska@suse.com> --- (In reply to Ralf Friedl from comment #0)

I have Tumbleweed with libelf1-0.168-5.4.x86_64 and libebl1-0.168-5.4.x86_64 installed. The command "zypper up" says "The following package update will NOT be installed: libelf1". Trying to update with "zypper up libelf1" leads to a conflict: Problem: libelf1-0.168-6.1.x86_64 requires libebl-plugins = 0.168, but this requirement cannot be provided uninstallable providers: libebl-plugins-0.168-6.1.i586[repo-oss]

libebl-plugins-0.168-6.1.x86_64[repo-oss]

Solution 1: replacement of libebl1-0.168-5.4.x86_64 with libebl-plugins-0.168-6.1.x86_64 Solution 2: do not install libelf1-0.168-6.1.x86_64 Solution 3: break libelf1-0.168-6.1.x86_64 by ignoring some of its dependencies

Solution 1 seems to be the right choice, especially as trying to install libebl-plugins automatically removes libebl1.

Yes. What seems to me strange is that you have mixed i586 and x86_64 targets for the packages. I bet you use x86_64, right?

So the question is, why doesn't the resolver realize this? The package libebl-plugins contains the information that it obsoletes libebl and libebl1, and this information is used when explicitly installing libebl-plugins. So why not when libebl-plugins is implicitly needed for libelf1?

Maybe due to already installed i586 flavor of the package? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.