Bug 18540 - gdm update requires gnome-libs update
gdm update requires gnome-libs update
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: gdm (Show other bugs)
6.0
i386 Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Elliot Lee
Aaron Brown
:
: 20494 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2000-10-06 11:29 EDT by Brian Brock
Modified: 2007-04-18 12:29 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2001-01-19 19:07:17 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Brian Brock 2000-10-06 11:29:24 EDT
the gdm errata package gdm-2.0beta2-26 requires gnome-libs >= 1.0.17.

The only mention of an updated 6.0 errata package is the gnome update for
6.0, which mentions gdm-1.0.0-36 (which no longer exists on the ftp site).
The only gnome-libs that can be found on the update site is
gnome-libs-1.0.10-2.
Comment 1 Owen Taylor 2000-10-16 11:43:51 EDT
Do you have a suggested fix? Do we need to put the 6.1 or 6.2 gnome-libs 
as an errata on the 6.0 errata page? I have no idea about how to do
this so I'm assigning the bug to Elliot, who has more experience in
this area.
Comment 2 Brian Brock 2000-11-06 16:42:48 EST
I'd recommend that we first either repost the old version of the gdm package (so
that users following the errata don't recieve a 'file not found' error), or that
we copy gnome-libs (and subsequent dependencies) into the 6.0 errata tree.  I
don't know for certain that we need the entire 6.1 errata into the 6.0 errata, I
haven't tinkered enough in the packages yet.  I don't know the entire fallout
from following any of those paths, so I'll leave the decision up to everyone
else.  In a week or so, I'll be able to do more research and see which might be
easier.
Comment 3 Bill Nottingham 2001-01-19 19:07:09 EST
*** Bug 20494 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.