RPM release differences for same GC version [WAS: Help menu]

[Derek Atkins]

"Stewart V. Wright" <svwright+lists at amtp.liv.ac.uk> writes:

> * Jean-David Beyer <jdbeyer at exit109.com> [040716 14:43]:
>> I guess this is not true of all systems or, at least, all gnucash rpms.
>
> ...Great.  Dependency hell here we come!
>
> I didn't realise that there was competing packaging going on out
> there.  (I roll my own from the tar ball.)

Yes, the RPMs distributed on gnucash.org are different than the ones
built by, say, Red Hat.  The "Official Red Hat RPMs" (created by Red
Hat and shipped with Red Hat) include gnucash-docs instead of
providing separate packages.

>> I did rpm -q gnucash-docs and it proclaimed the package was not installed.
>> 
>> I next I blindly tried to download the rpm cited and then do an
>>  rpm -Uvh gnucash-docs-1.8.4-1.i386.rpm
>> and got a zillion complaints about conflicts. I picked out one of the 
>> files it complained about and did an
>>  rpm -qf [filename]
>> and it announced all this stuff was part of gnucash-1.8.8-0.9 already 
>> installed on my system.
>
> (I will avoid the standard "use 1.8.9, it's got bug fixes"
> comment... *Grin*)
>
> Where did you get your rpm from?  Is this the standard RHEL/Fedora
> release?  
>
> Does someone who is actually involved in those releases need to chase
> this up?  i.e. Notting???

I find it odd that the RH-distributed RPM had problems with docs.  But
if so you should complain to Red Hat.

-derek
-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlord at MIT.EDU                        PGP key available