Re: conflict? gnome updater vs. RH up2date

[Ian Peters <itp helixcode com>]

On Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 11:56:07PM -0700, mjbjr@beaudesign.com wrote:
> Please excuse my ignorance here, but in theory, isn't the creator of an
> rpm package for software 'foo' supposed to follow the installation
> directions that would be found in foo.tar.gz, *except* when creating
> foo.rpm *for Redhat*, or foo.rpm *for Caldera*, or someother distro that
> wants things differently than the "norm". And whose installation
> guidelines is helix following?  

Helix is attempting to follow FHS as much as possible, while
integrating with the users distribution.  This means that packages
are installed into /usr, configuration information in /etc, and so
on.

Packages are not supposed to install into /usr/local.  The
/usr/local tree is the specific domain of the user, for packages
installed by hand, and must not be touched by the package
manager.

> Now, on my current system, which I built in Nov 1999 using RH6.1, I've
> been careful to use the rh 'up2date' with Priority Access to keep the core
> system packages updated consistently.  Two weeks ago, I ran the helix
> installer program (all packages), which I liked, but later discovered
> killed 'up2date'. So, a few days ago, I did a second helix-update in hopes
> of getting 'up2date' functioning again, but no joy, so far.

This has been fixed now, so please give us one last chance.

> I'm willing to accept what ever "blame" I need to for the problem I'm
> having, all the same:
> 
> [root@localhost /root]# rpm -q gtk+
> gtk+-1.2.8-0_helix_1
> 
> [root@localhost /root]# rpm -q pygtk 
> pygtk-0.6.6-0_helix_2

Do you have python installed also via rpm?  Also, please upgrade to the
0_helix_3 release of pygtk.

-- 
Ian Peters
itp@helixcode.com