[solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

jlindgren · 2011-04-24 22:04:57

It seems that redland and redland-compat are in conflict, but both are required.
I notice that the installed version of redland-compat provides redland, but the new version does not.

$ pacman -Qu
redland-compat 1.0.12-1
skype 2.1.0.81-5.1

$ sudo pacman -Su
:: Starting full system upgrade...
warning: skype: ignoring package upgrade (2.1.0.81-5.1 => 2.2.0.25-1)
resolving dependencies...
looking for inter-conflicts...
error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies)
:: audacity: requires redland
:: libreoffice: requires redland

$ sudo pacman -S redland
resolving dependencies...
looking for inter-conflicts...
:: redland and redland-compat are in conflict. Remove redland-compat? [y/N] y
error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies)
:: redland-compat-storage-virtuoso: requires redland-compat
:: soprano: requires redland-compat

Last edited by jlindgren (2011-04-28 03:41:39)

Allan · 2011-04-24 22:06:18

Apparently this is now fixed in [testing]. Wait a bit for your mirror to sync.

ngoonee · 2011-04-24 22:38:32

Allan wrote:

Apparently this is now fixed in [testing]. Wait a bit for your mirror to sync.

I've already posted back to the ML that there's still file conflicts. It seems librdf doesn't have versioned so-names?

jlindgren · 2011-04-25 02:20:41

I just ran pacman -Syu again; none of the repositories have been changed since my first post, and the problem is still there. Allan, do you know in what package the problem was fixed?

Last edited by jlindgren (2011-04-25 02:22:31)

ngoonee · 2011-04-25 02:28:15

jlindgren wrote:

I just ran pacman -Syu again; none of the repositories have been changed since my first post, and the problem is still there. Allan, do you know in what package the problem was fixed?

You can follow the discussion in the ML yourself. No, it is not yet fixed, as I have indicated above.

Related question - why aren't you subscribed to [arch-dev-public]? The announcement on this was made there, and discussion has continued on [arch-general]. Its generally a good idea to be subscribed to at least the former (preferably the latter as well) if you're going to be using [testing].

jlindgren · 2011-04-25 04:21:48

I do not subscribe to mailing lists because I don't like the idea of filtering out the 99% of messages I don't care about in order to find the 1% I do care about. However, I will try in future to search arch-general and arch-dev-public before posting here. Are there any more lists I should search through?

ewaller · 2011-04-25 05:04:46

You don't have to subscribe -- it is available as an archive

sl1pkn07 · 2011-04-25 10:25:33

sl1pkn07@sL1pKn07 pacman.d]$ yaourt -S redland
Contraseña:
resolviendo dependencias...
verificando conflictos...

Objetivos (2): rasqal-0.9.25-1 [0,22 MB] redland-1.0.13-1 [0,18 MB]

Tamaño total de descarga: 0,00 MB
Tamaño total instalado: 3,44 MB

¿Continuar con la instalación? [S/n] s
(2/2) verificando la integridad de los paquetes [---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------] 100%
(2/2) verificando conflictos entre archivos [---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------] 100%
error: error al realizar la transacción (archivos en conflicto)
redland: /usr/lib/librdf.so.0 existe en el sistema de archivos
redland: /usr/lib/librdf.so.0.0.0 existe en el sistema de archivos

[sl1pkn07@sL1pKn07 pacman.d]$ yaourt -Qo /usr/lib/librdf.so.0
/usr/lib/librdf.so.0 es propiedad de redland-compat 1.0.12-3
[sl1pkn07@sL1pKn07 pacman.d]$

sorry. menssage in spanish

byte · 2011-04-25 10:30:17

Bug linked: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/23927

siriusb · 2011-04-25 12:06:59

Today I ran into this problem as well. Unfortunately I have openoffice-base 3.2.1-5 installed since other versions of OOO and libreoffice have a bug, so I need to keep this version. Since redland has been replaced recently with redland-compat, system upgrade fails as it it is stated in OP. Testing repo was enabled for installing gnome3.
My question is can I keep openoffice-base in some way? Modifying /var/lib/pacman/local/openoffice-base-3.2.1-5/desc does the trick or it is not viable?

Edit: openoffice-base is in pacman.conf IgnorePkg array.

Edit2: I was able to run a system upgrade after modifying /var/lib/pacman/local/openoffice-base-3.2.1-5/desc.

Last edited by siriusb (2011-04-25 15:07:54)

mango123 · 2011-04-25 20:42:51

Temporary solved add in /etc/pacman.conf

IgnorePkg = redland redland-compat

alphazo · 2011-04-25 21:43:06

mango123 wrote:

Temporary solved add in /etc/pacman.conf
IgnorePkg = redland redland-compat

When doing that I'm still getting:

:: slv2: requires redland>=1.0.13
:: slv2: requires redland>=1.0.13
:: soprano: requires redland-compat

jlindgren · 2011-04-25 21:44:11

Install the older redland-compat from stable, it provides redland.

Allan · 2011-04-25 21:50:51

So many people using [testing] and not knowing about library sonames...

alphazo · 2011-04-25 21:58:35

I added to my ignore list: "redland redland-compat slv2 ardour soprano"
and re-installed older version of the above packages. Upgrade went fine after that

Inxsible · 2011-04-25 22:00:27

Allan wrote:

So many people using [testing] and not knowing about library sonames...

I think its because of the fact that gnome3 hit [testing]. Everyone wanted to try it out I guess.

ngoonee · 2011-04-25 22:18:10

Inxsible wrote:

Allan wrote:
So many people using [testing] and not knowing about library sonames...
I think its because of the fact that gnome3 hit [testing]. Everyone wanted to try it out I guess.

Yeah, most likely that. Wonder how many are subscribed to [archlinux-dev-public] even.

Anyway, Allan, I've been wondering whether the fact that the library versions are librdf.so.0.0.0 is a bug. Shouldn't it be librdf.so.1.0.13 or something? At least that's how its like with other shared objects I've seen (for example gcc's .so.1.0.3).

Allan · 2011-04-25 22:26:48

It appears upstream do not actually version the library, so the two versions being provided should be compatible indicating one could just be removed... If not, then that is an upstream bug. I'm guessing there is issues with selecting the right libraries to build against and that is holding up this fix.

ngoonee · 2011-04-25 23:25:45

Allan wrote:

It appears upstream do not actually version the library, so the two versions being provided should be compatible indicating one could just be removed... If not, then that is an upstream bug. I'm guessing there is issues with selecting the right libraries to build against and that is holding up this fix.

Yes, seems likely. If it should be compatible I can help test related applications. The thing is, I'm not really sure what redland does (RDF data, huh?).... or rather what each app uses it for. I don't use akonadi/nepomuk for example.

jlindgren · 2011-04-25 23:29:15

ngoonee wrote:

The thing is, I'm not really sure what redland does (RDF data, huh?).... or rather what each app uses it for.

My thought exactly.

AndyRTR · 2011-04-26 16:39:23

http://bugs.librdf.org/mantis/view.php?id=441

schivmeister · 2011-04-26 17:39:10

ngoonee wrote:

The thing is, I'm not really sure what redland does (RDF data, huh?).... or rather what each app uses it for. I don't use akonadi/nepomuk for example.

Just a library for data modelling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_D … _Framework

That page also mentions nepomuk.

Last edited by schivmeister (2011-04-26 17:39:40)

jlindgren · 2011-04-26 19:51:59

schivmeister wrote:

Just a library for data modelling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_D … _Framework

Somehow I don't think that answers the question of what it actually does. What sort of data does it model, and what is the model good for?

ngoonee · 2011-04-26 23:41:46

AndyRTR wrote:

http://bugs.librdf.org/mantis/view.php?id=441

Replied to that report.. Thanks Andreas.

GogglesGuy · 2011-04-27 14:00:37

So are these broken packages just going to stay in testing?

Arch Linux

#1 2011-04-24 22:04:57

[solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#2 2011-04-24 22:06:18

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#3 2011-04-24 22:38:32

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#4 2011-04-25 02:20:41

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#5 2011-04-25 02:28:15

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#6 2011-04-25 04:21:48

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#7 2011-04-25 05:04:46

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#8 2011-04-25 10:25:33

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#9 2011-04-25 10:30:17

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#10 2011-04-25 12:06:59

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#11 2011-04-25 20:42:51

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#12 2011-04-25 21:43:06

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#13 2011-04-25 21:44:11

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#14 2011-04-25 21:50:51

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#15 2011-04-25 21:58:35

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#16 2011-04-25 22:00:27

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#17 2011-04-25 22:18:10

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#18 2011-04-25 22:26:48

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#19 2011-04-25 23:25:45

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#20 2011-04-25 23:29:15

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#21 2011-04-26 16:39:23

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#22 2011-04-26 17:39:10

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#23 2011-04-26 19:51:59

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#24 2011-04-26 23:41:46

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

#25 2011-04-27 14:00:37

Re: [solved] Dependency hell with redland and redland-compat

Board footer