Hello,
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012, Roger Luedecke wrote:
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 05:10 +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:39:55 -0800, Roger Luedecke <roger.luedecke@gmail.com> wrote:
for d in $(rpm -q --requires ardour); do rpm -q --provides $d; done
Can you break that down a bit? I'm not a CLI guru, so that is greek to me.
No problem :)
rpm -q --requires ardour
lets rpm list all requirements of ardour. The do loop then calls rpm for each requirement to show which package provides the given requirement. For a requirement that isn't satisfied you should not get a package name.
Looks like a lot of things that should have been in the .spec as dependencies were not. Question then is, why did zypper miss these with its other commands like verify and such? Is there a problem in zypper maybe?
No, Philipp probably was just tired. Try:
rpm -q --requires ardour | while read -r req; do rpm -q --whatprovides "$req"; done | sort -u
Oh, and don't worry about: no package provides rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 no package provides rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 no package provides rpmlib(PayloadIsLzma) <= 4.4.6-1
HTH, -dnh
-- "Microsoft admitted its Vista operating system was a 'less good product' in what IT experts have described as the most ambitious understatement since the captain of the Titanic reported some slightly damp tablecloths." http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/ That looks better. no package provides rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 no package provides rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 no package provides rpmlib(PayloadIsLzma) <= 4.4.6-1 No other complaints. I'm looking for it now and can't find anything that
On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 06:48 +0100, David Haller wrote: provides that. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org