Bug 206707

Summary:	ZMD fails dependency resolution attempt with ffmpeg and libffmpeg0 from Packman
Product:	[openSUSE] SUSE Linux 10.1	Reporter:	Jim Henderson <jhenderson>
Component:	Zenworks	Assignee:	E-mail List <zlm-code10-bugs>
Status:	RESOLVED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Jawaad Tariq <jtariq>
Severity:	Normal
Priority:	P5 - None	CC:	andreas.hanke
Version:	Final
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	i686
OS:	SuSE Linux 10.1
Whiteboard:
Found By:	Other	Services Priority:
Business Priority:		Blocker:	---
Marketing QA Status:	---	IT Deployment:	---
Attachments:	zmd-backend.log file showing dependency failure

Description Jim Henderson 2006-09-19 14:58:08 UTC

Dependency resolution fails with:

--- snip ---

[jhenderson@jshlaptop log]$ rug up
Resolving Dependencies...

ERROR: Dependency resolution failed:
Unresolved dependencies:
Updating ffmpeg-0.4.9-7.pm.svn20060817.i586[System packages] to ffmpeg-0.4.9-7.pm.svn20060918.i586[Packman]
libffmpeg0-0.4.9-7.pm.svn20060817.i586[System packages] provides libffmpeg0 == 0.4.9-7.pm.svn20060817, but is scheduled to be uninstalled.
Can't satisfy requirement libffmpeg0 == 0.4.9-7.pm.svn20060817 for ffmpeg-0.4.9-7.pm.svn20060817.i586[System packages]
Can't install ffmpeg-0.4.9-7.pm.svn20060918.i686[Packman], since ffmpeg-0.4.9-7.pm.svn20060918.i586[Packman] is already marked as needing to be installed
Marking this resolution attempt as invalid.

[jhenderson@jshlaptop log]$

--- snip ---

If I update the packages manually, the dependency isn't a problem.  From the message here, it appears that the resolution fails because I'm using i686 packages on the machine and the updates listed are i586 updates.

zmd-backend.log will be attached to this report; the zmd-messages.log file is available as well, but I don't see anything in that log at the same time that seems to be relevant, but if it's needed I can provide that as well.

Comment 1 Jim Henderson 2006-09-19 15:03:27 UTC

Created attachment 99077 [details]
zmd-backend.log file showing dependency failure

See the messages at 8:50:20 am on Sept 19; that's when the failed update ran.

Comment 2 Andreas Hanke 2006-09-19 23:50:23 UTC

This sounds very similar to 199819, might it be a duplicate?

Comment 3 Andreas Hanke 2006-09-20 00:47:03 UTC

It's exactly the same issue as bug 199819.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 199819 ***