Description of problem: A new version of exiv2, on which kphotoalbum depends, was released recently. Currently "yum update" breaks thusly: Error: Missing Dependency: libexiv2-0.9.1.so()(64bit) is needed by package kphotoalbum Strangely, kphotoalbum also appears to be "viral". I hadn't ever gotten around to using it, so I did an "rpm -e kphotoalbum". I can verify that it succeeded, because "rpm -q kphotoalbum" reports that it is not installed. However, every "yum update" now tries to reinstall it, causing the update to fail because of the missing dependency. Any ideas why yum thinks it needs to update a package that is no longer installed? Both the missing dependency and yum's refusal to give up on kphotoalbum happen on both x86_64 and i386 platforms I manage, so I marked it as all platforms, even though I can verify the problem only for those two platforms. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): kphotoalbum-2.2-2.fc5 How reproducible: Always. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Install kphotoalbum with the old version of exiv2 so the install will succeed. 2. Observe that "yum update" fails because no version of kphotoalbum linked against the new libexiv2 is available. 3. rpm -e kphotoalbum 4. "yum update" again and watch it try to reinstall kphotoalbum, and fail due to the missing dependency. Actual results: Yum cannot update the system, even after kphotoalbum is uninstalled, due to a dependency on an old version of exiv2. Expected results: A new kphotoalbum should be released to fix the dependency problem, and yum should not try to update a package that is no longer installed. Additional info:
Oops... could'a swore I pushed a build for that... but alas, nothing is there. Requeue'd rebuild request for FC-4/FC-5 branches, kphotoalbus-2.2-3 should soon appear in a repo near you. Regarding it's virual-ness, dunno, the only thing I can think of is that kphotoalbum includes: Obsoletes/Provides: kimdaba
Thanks for the report. If/when you upgrade to kphotoalbum-2.2-3, if you can reproduce 'yum update' problem, please let me know (report again or reopen this bug), and I'll look into it more.