Small complaint about rpm's - Slackware

This is a discussion on Small complaint about rpm's - Slackware ; Hi all, Just a comment... There are a few rpm's I've installed over the years, always using the --nodeps option. I just installed flashplayer and it gave me the message: Failed dependencies: /bin/bash is needed by flash-plugin-9.0.48.0-release along with all ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Small complaint about rpm's

  1. Small complaint about rpm's

    Hi all,

    Just a comment...

    There are a few rpm's I've installed over the years, always
    using the --nodeps option.

    I just installed flashplayer and it gave me the message:
    Failed dependencies:
    /bin/bash is needed by flash-plugin-9.0.48.0-release
    along with all the other failed dependencies.

    Doesn't it even look? /bin/bash is there? It's even looking
    in the right place. This gets my goat. And I looked for a
    few of the other dependencies, they seem to be there too.

    Julien

  2. Re: Small complaint about rpm's

    Julien Mills wrote:

    > Just a comment...


    To a newsgroup for a Linux distribution that doesn't use rpm, I might
    add ...

    > There are a few rpm's I've installed over the years, always
    > using the --nodeps option.


    seems a reasonable assumption that you *are* using Slackware, then, I
    suppose ...

    > Failed dependencies:
    > /bin/bash is needed by flash-plugin-9.0.48.0-release
    > along with all the other failed dependencies.
    >
    > Doesn't it even look?


    Yes, except not where I think you think it might look ...

    > /bin/bash is there?


    Of course, but rpm is looking in the RPM database for a package that
    "provides" /bin/bash. Since you're using a non-rpm-based Linux
    distribution, it doesn't find any indication that such a package is
    installed.

    > It's even looking in the right place.


    What makes you say that? See my explanation above (elaborated on below).

    > This gets my goat. And I looked for a few of the other dependencies,
    > they seem to be there too.


    The biggest problem with RPM is not that it does all this dependancy
    checking, but rather that it is designed to work *only* with rpm
    packages, so that when a package being installed has a particular
    dependancy, what it checks for is whether any installed pacakge (for
    rpm's _own_ definition of "installed package") _provides_ that
    dependancy. It does not, in fact, check simply that the dependancy
    (such as the presence of /bin/bash) has been met.

    I take it that there isn't a simple tar.gz file containing the Flash
    plugin anymore? Ah yes, here it is:
    http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get...9_linux.tar.gz

    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sylvain Robitaille syl@alcor.concordia.ca

    Systems and Network analyst Concordia University
    Instructional & Information Technology Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

  3. Re: Small complaint about rpm's

    On 2007-08-02, Julien Mills wrote:
    >
    > There are a few rpm's I've installed over the years, always
    > using the --nodeps option.
    >
    > I just installed flashplayer and it gave me the message:
    > Failed dependencies:
    > /bin/bash is needed by flash-plugin-9.0.48.0-release
    > along with all the other failed dependencies.
    >
    > Doesn't it even look? /bin/bash is there? It's even looking
    > in the right place. This gets my goat. And I looked for a
    > few of the other dependencies, they seem to be there too.


    Well, I don't think the bash *rpm* is installed, which is what rpm is
    looking for. So no, rpm doesn't look for /bin/bash, it looks for e.g.
    bash-3.0-19.3 in the rpm database. That's why you need --nodeps in the
    first place: the rpm database on a normal Slackware install is
    incomplete, because everything is provided in Slackware packages
    instead. (rpm isn't really meant as a supplementary package tool; it
    really wants to be the primary package tool for the distro.)


    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  4. Re: Small complaint about rpm's

    Sylvain Robitaille wrote:

    > The biggest problem with RPM is not that it does all this dependancy
    > checking, but rather that it is designed to work *only* with rpm
    > packages, so that when a package being installed has a particular
    > dependancy, what it checks for is whether any installed pacakge (for
    > rpm's _own_ definition of "installed package") _provides_ that
    > dependancy. It does not, in fact, check simply that the dependancy
    > (such as the presence of /bin/bash) has been met.


    Thanks for this clear explanation, I figured it worked something
    like that. I always felt a little funny using the --nodeps, but
    not anymore.

    Julien


  5. Re: Small complaint about rpm's

    On 2007-08-02, Julien Mills wrote:

    > Doesn't it even look? /bin/bash is there? It's even looking
    > in the right place. This gets my goat. And I looked for a
    > few of the other dependencies, they seem to be there too.


    The installer is whacked. Ignore it. Just take the two files:

    libflashplayer.so
    flashplayer.xpt

    .....and manually copy or move them to /usr/lib/foobrowser/plugins/ for
    global use or to ~/.foobrowser/plugins/ for local use. Restart
    browser.

    nb

  6. Re: Small complaint about rpm's

    notbob says:
    >On 2007-08-02, Julien Mills wrote:


    >> Doesn't it even look? /bin/bash is there? It's even looking in
    >> the right place. This gets my goat. And I looked for a few of
    >> the other dependencies, they seem to be there too.


    >The installer is whacked. Ignore it. Just take the two files:


    >libflashplayer.so flashplayer.xpt


    >....and manually copy or move them to /usr/lib/foobrowser/plugins/
    >for global use or to ~/.foobrowser/plugins/ for local use. Restart
    >browser.


    Didn't it used to be that you had to link the flash library file to
    the plugins directory? Or was that java? Is this no longer
    necessary?

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  7. Re: Small complaint about rpm's

    On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:35:32 +0000, anon wrote:

    > Didn't it used to be that you had to link the flash library file to
    > the plugins directory? Or was that java? Is this no longer
    > necessary?


    It was (and is) java, n00b.

    > cordially, as always,


    Smeg off.


    --
    "Bother!" said Pooh, as he found that he had syphilis.


  8. Re: Small complaint about rpm's

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    anon@anon.com wrote:
    > notbob says:
    >>On 2007-08-02, Julien Mills wrote:

    >
    >>> Doesn't it even look? /bin/bash is there? It's even looking in
    >>> the right place. This gets my goat. And I looked for a few of
    >>> the other dependencies, they seem to be there too.

    >
    >>The installer is whacked. Ignore it. Just take the two files:

    >
    >>libflashplayer.so flashplayer.xpt

    >
    >>....and manually copy or move them to /usr/lib/foobrowser/plugins/
    >>for global use or to ~/.foobrowser/plugins/ for local use. Restart
    >>browser.

    >
    > Didn't it used to be that you had to link the flash library file to
    > the plugins directory? Or was that java? Is this no longer
    > necessary?


    Don't know the answer? Follow your own stupid advice and go
    back to windoze.

    Idiot.

    > cordially, as always,


    Like Dan said: smeg off.

    BL.
    - --
    Brad Littlejohn | Email: tyketto@sbcglobal.net
    Unix Systems Administrator, | tyketto@ozemail.com.au
    Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
    PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFGsnyGyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsrWAJwMfP4nmeIOPcbtu/OnZZbVB5vLsQCfWtHB
    lLb7bQZ65uV6lm/bEEGcL6M=
    =xbMa
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  9. Re: Small complaint about rpm's

    On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:59:23 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:

    > Well, I don't think the bash *rpm* is installed, which is what rpm is
    > looking for. So no, rpm doesn't look for /bin/bash, it looks for e.g.
    > bash-3.0-19.3 in the rpm database. That's why you need --nodeps in the
    > first place: the rpm database on a normal Slackware install is incomplete,
    > because everything is provided in Slackware packages instead. (rpm isn't
    > really meant as a supplementary package tool; it really wants to be the
    > primary package tool for the distro.)



    First off RPM's management sucks to begin with. Second, why are you even
    using an rpm package when there is a tarball...

    http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/downl..._Prod_Version=
    ShockwaveFlash

    or...

    http://tinyurl.com/zgkz2

    And why even bother with their installer. Just install them using mc
    and copy to /usr/lib/
    --
    Linux Help: http://rsgibson.com/linux.htm
    Email - rsgibson@verizon.borg
    Replace borg with net


  10. Re: Small complaint about rpm's

    Julien Mills wrote:
    > There are a few rpm's I've installed over the years, always
    > using the --nodeps option.
    >
    > I just installed flashplayer and it gave me the message:
    > Failed dependencies:
    > /bin/bash is needed by flash-plugin-9.0.48.0-release
    > along with all the other failed dependencies.
    >
    > Doesn't it even look? /bin/bash is there? It's even looking
    > in the right place. This gets my goat. And I looked for a
    > few of the other dependencies, they seem to be there too.



    Why mess with rpm at all?

    a) go to
    http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/downl...ShockwaveFlash

    b) select option 1: .tar.gz

    c) open a console
    > cd /where/it/downloaded
    > tar xf install_flash_player_9_linux.tar.gz
    > cd install_flash_player_9_linux
    > ./flashplayer-installer

    enter
    enter
    y
    ....
    > cd ..
    > rm -rf install_flash*


    - Daniel

  11. Re: Small complaint about rpm's

    > There are a few rpm's I've installed over the years, always

    You have the responses here, and also you can convert
    the rpm into a tgz package:


    rpm2tgz

    then use installpkg on the new .tgz.
    It's best to look through the contents of the .tgz
    first just to ensure it's not going to overwrite
    anything already on your system.

  12. Re: Small complaint about rpm's

    On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:33:39 +0000, Stuart Winter wrote:

    >> There are a few rpm's I've installed over the years, always

    >
    > You have the responses here, and also you can convert the rpm into a tgz
    > package:
    >
    > rpm2tgz
    >
    > then use installpkg on the new .tgz.
    > It's best to look through the contents of the .tgz first just to ensure
    > it's not going to overwrite anything already on your system.


    Yes I know about rpm2tgz. I've used it from time to time, but it
    doesn't always completely work. I can't remember rpm I was
    converting but some of the scripts that we supposed to be run
    after the install did not make it over into the tgz. I think
    is was some unixodbc or an odbc driver. So I ended up uninstalling
    the package and installing the rpm. (which worked)

  13. Re: Small complaint about rpm's

    On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 01:14:16 +0000, Ron Gibson wrote:

    > On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:59:23 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:
    >
    >> Well, I don't think the bash *rpm* is installed, which is what rpm is
    >> looking for. So no, rpm doesn't look for /bin/bash, it looks for e.g.
    >> bash-3.0-19.3 in the rpm database. That's why you need --nodeps in the
    >> first place: the rpm database on a normal Slackware install is
    >> incomplete, because everything is provided in Slackware packages
    >> instead. (rpm isn't really meant as a supplementary package tool; it
    >> really wants to be the primary package tool for the distro.)

    >
    >
    > First off RPM's management sucks to begin with. Second, why are you even
    > using an rpm package when there is a tarball...
    >
    > http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/downl..._Prod_Version=
    > ShockwaveFlash
    >
    > or...
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/zgkz2
    >
    > And why even bother with their installer. Just install them using mc and
    > copy to /usr/lib/

    Thanks for all the responses everyone, perhaps I shouldn't have
    used shockwave as an example. Some of the packages I've installed
    aren't available as packages, for example, some of the odbc drivers
    from IBM, so I sometimes install the rpm, sometimes I convert the rpm
    to a package, sometimes get the source (if available) and use
    checkinstall. It depends on my mood.

    Anyway, I my point was that rpm didn't even look to see if the
    dependent programs were present. And thanks to several people
    for letting me know that rpm keeps its own database of what programs
    are installed on your system.

    (Sometimes I get this urge to post in the royal we instead of in
    the first person, hmm, I wonder what it is?)

  14. Re: Small complaint about rpm's

    Julien Mills says:

    >(Sometimes I get this urge to post in the royal we instead of in
    >the first person, hmm, I wonder what it is?)


    You probably wish to use the royal "we" because you have low
    self-esteem. We use the editorial "we" because we dislike the word
    "I."

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  15. Re: Small complaint about rpm's

    On Aug 5, 8:33 pm, Stuart Winter
    wrote:
    > > There are a few rpm's I've installed over the years, always

    >
    > You have the responses here, and also you can convert
    > the rpm into a tgz package:
    >
    > rpm2tgz
    >
    > then use installpkg on the new .tgz.
    > It's best to look through the contents of the .tgz
    > first just to ensure it's not going to overwrite
    > anything already on your system.


    RUBBISH

    ABSOLUTE RUBBISH

    STOP IT, STOP IT, WASTING PEOPLE'S TIME WITH BAD ADVICE