It turned out (see bug #2830) that the new "--auto-req" option in urpmi (enabled by default) chooses the first available alternatives, while usual '--auto' behaves smarter and chooses a package with highest version.
Advisory: Improve '--auto-req' option in urpmi to choose a package with highest version (like in case of usual '--auto'). Build lists: https://abf.rosalinux.ru/build_lists/1362474 https://abf.rosalinux.ru/build_lists/1362473
For x64 system with x32 repos added and new compix repo added: [root@ROSAx64 keleg]# urpmi compiz [root@ROSAx64 keleg]#
Can you provide output of "urpmi --debug compiz"?
search_packages: found compiz-0.9.8.2-3-rosa2012.1.x86_64 matching compiz found package(s): compiz-0.9.8.2-3-rosa2012.1.x86_64 opening rpmdb (root=, write=) Skipping compiz-0.9.8.2-3-rosa2012.1.x86_64 since newer version of the package exists in repositories no packages match compiz (it is either in skip.list or already rejected) Skipping compiz-0.9.8.2-3-rosa2012.1.x86_64 since newer version of the package exists in repositories no packages match compiz (it is either in skip.list or already rejected) scheduled sets of transactions: unlocking urpmi database unlocking rpm database EXITING (pid=6049)
Hm, maybe you have added containers with 32bit compiz from bug #2830?
Yes! But the exit without an error message is bad practice.
I agree, but unfortunately it is a common practice for current urpmi... Maybe create a separate bug for this and push this particular update?
urpmi-6.71-41-rosa2012.1 ******************** Advisory ********************* Improve '--auto-req' option in urpmi to choose a package with highest version (like in case of usual '--auto') *************************************************** QA Verified