Description of problem: I am unable to update some of my packages from jpackage that depend on xml-commons-api due to a very strange reason. Here's what happens: [root@breaker devel]# rpm -q xml-commons{,-apis} xml-commons-1.3.02-0.b2.7jpp.10 xml-commons-apis-1.3.02-0.b2.7jpp.10 [root@breaker devel]# yum update ... --> Processing Dependency: xml-commons = 1.3.02-0.b2.7jpp.10 for package: xml-commons-apis ... Error: Missing Dependency: xml-commons = 1.3.02-0.b2.7jpp.10 is needed by package xml-commons-apis As you can see, when attempting to update, yum says that it can't find a dependency that actually exists and is installed. When I try to install the dependent package itself, it yields no problems: [root@breaker devel]# rpm -e --nodeps xml-commons-apis [root@breaker devel]# yum -y install xml-commons-apis-1.3.02-0.b2.7jpp.10.i386.rpm ... Installed: xml-commons-apis.i386 0:1.3.02-0.b2.7jpp.10 Complete! [root@breaker devel]# Additional info: I am not sure whether this is a rpm problem or a yum problem. Please reassign when appropriate. This morning my roommate had a quite similar problem while trying to install his homebrewed mencoder subpackage that didn't see an installed mplayer subpackage coming from the very same package. What it had in common with this was a horribly long version string. But this might be a wrong guess. Also, I am not the only one with this problem. See this URL: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=161024
Can you see if this is fixed with yum 3.2.2 in updates-testing?
Jeremy: No, it's not fixed.
Can you attach teh full output of 'yum -d6 update'?
Created attachment 159997 [details] Full yum -d6 update output [root@breaker lkundrak]# yum -d6 update 2>&1 |tee yum-248774.log
Posts in the forum starting from comment 10 [1] imply that this is not a bug of yum, but simply of the packages. [1] http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showpost.php?p=835623&postcount=10 Jeremy: Do you agree? And if it is, wouldn't there be a way to let non-technical user know what went wrong with the update? (the error message obviously doesn't explain it enough).
Yes, definitely a package bug. I'll try to spend some time on making the errors a little bit more clear on how the problem is coming in.