+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #457095 +++ From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008071615 Fedora/3.0.1-1.fc9 Firefox/3.0.1 Description of problem: On attempting to install viking-0.9.4-2.5.i586.rpm got message ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve : rpmlib(PayloadIsLzma) is needed by viking...please report this error in bugzilla Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.Double-click package file 2.Enter root password 3.wait Actual Results: Expected Results: Additional info: -- Additional comment from ffesti on 2008-07-29 15:27 EST -- Looks like you are trying to install a package that was created by a more recent version of rpm that does support Lzma compression while your own rpm version doesn't. Can you please add a link to the package you are trying to install and state what distribution you are using. -- Additional comment from doug on 2008-07-29 15:46 EST -- http://download.uni-hd.de/ftp/pub/linux/opensuse/repositories/Application:/Geo/openSUSE_11.0/i586/viking-0.9.4-2.5.i586.rpm I'm using Fedora 9
Cloning as yum bug: Yum should have detected this problem before rpm_check_debug. Perhaps yum should even create special error messages explaining that problems with these requirements are the result of incompatible rpm packages. It is very likely that the rpmlib Python bindings do not yet provide enough information to handle this.
So we have a couple of problems here (on the yum side): 1. We remove everything that starts "rpmlib(" from the repo. metadata, to save a huge amount of space (obviously at this point we can't know what the client system's rpm handles). 2. We ignore anything starting "rpmlib(" when we check the requires/provides of any packages. ...in theory we could fix #2 (assuming we have APIs to list what the current rpm provides), so a local "yum install blah.rpm" would do the right thing. But that's a pretty weird edge case. To fix #1 we need some way to say "this repo. has these rpmlib() requirements" (just putting them all back in is almost certainly a big lose). I know Seth was thinking of putting that data in the repomd.xml ... but that hasn't happened yet. We're open to options (and patches :), but this isn't high on the TODO list.
The reason we ignore them is there's nothing we can do about them. If you're running yum and have packages with a new rpmlib() dep, then the only thing you can do is update rpm (and hope it doesn't have the new rpmlib() dep) and then restart the process entirely. You can't just update rpm at the same time and have things work.
Any new thoughts on what we should do here?
closing this as cantfix. we're just sol.