From /root/drakx/report.gz ... Installation failed: file /usr/lib/libDrakX/Xconfig/various.pm from install of libdrakx-kbd-mouse-x11-0.98-1.mga 2.i586 conflicts with file from package drakx-kbd-mouse-x11-0.97-1.mga1.i586 file /usr/lib/libDrakX/auto/xf86misc/main/main.so from install of libdrakx-kbd-mouse-x11-0.98-1.mga2.i586 c onflicts with file from package drakx-kbd-mouse-x11-0.97-1.mga1.i586 libdrakx-kbd-mouse-x11 = 0.98 is needed by drakx-kbd-mouse-x11-0.98-1.mga2.i586 perl(Xconfig::default) is needed by drakx-kbd-mouse-x11-0.98-1.mga2.i586 perl(Xconfig::main) is needed by drakx-kbd-mouse-x11-0.98-1.mga2.i586 perl(Xconfig::xfree) is needed by drakx-kbd-mouse-x11-0.98-1.mga2.i586 perl(Xconfig::card) is needed by (installed) harddrake-13.58-1.mga1.i586 perl(Xconfig::resolution_and_depth) is needed by (installed) drakxtools-backend-13.58-1.mga1.i586 perl(Xconfig::resolution_and_depth) is needed by (installed) libdrakx-net-0.97.1-2.mga1.noarch librasqal.so.3 is needed by libredland0-1.0.14-1.mga2.i586 librdf.so.0 is needed by soprano-plugin-redland-4:2.7.3-1.mga2.i586
Hi, thanks for reporting this bug. Assigned to the package maintainer.
Keywords: (none) => TriagedComponent: RPM Packages => InstallerAssignee: bugsquad => thierry.vignaudSource RPM: libdrakx-kbd-mouse-x11 => drakx-kbd-mouse-x11Severity: normal => critical
It's more urpmi see bug 3223, bug 3325
Component: Installer => RPM PackagesAssignee: thierry.vignaud => bugsquadSource RPM: drakx-kbd-mouse-x11 => urpmi
Assignee: bugsquad => thierry.vignaud
Keywords: (none) => Junior_job, PATCH
Created attachment 1057 [details] The conflict tag is invalid because of a "-" in the version macro. I cannot repair it for now but anyone can just replace all occurences of "drakx-kbd-mouse-x11_conflicted_version" by "drakx_kbd_mouse_x11_conflicted_version"
Source RPM: urpmi => drakx-kbd-mouse-x11
(In reply to comment #2) > It's more urpmi see bug 3223, bug 3325 @manuel: no this is not an urpmi bug. And bug #3223 is totally unrelated
*** Bug 3325 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 3323 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Obviously the patch has to applied with -R...
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #2) > > It's more urpmi see bug 3223, bug 3325 > > @manuel: no this is not an urpmi bug. Ok thanks > And bug #3223 is totally unrelated Indeed sorry seems I have confuse two bugs.
Blocks: (none) => 3342
Just fixed
Status: NEW => RESOLVEDResolution: (none) => FIXED