Steve Traylen wrote:
> It would interesting if you could post a list of the hard RPM dependency
> errors you hit. My suspicion would be that most of them of not needed
> anyway. The likelihood is that the LCG code stands a very good chance
> of just working as is on SL4.
Unfortunately it was urgent to succesfully install LCG on these nodes,
so yesterday we tried SL4 and today we reinstalled SL3.
However I can say for sure that the problems didn't seem that important:
1) Many problems occured because we had version 0.8.3 (example) of a
library instead of 0.6.x that a package on the SL3 LCG repository
wanted. This should in most cases be fixed by relaxing the version
dependendency in the RPMs.
2) Some other problems occured because the packages needed were not
found. In one case that I looked at, it was a simple change of name of
the package that prevented apt from finding it.
If you think the port of the packages is easy it would be interesting to
make public an SL4 LCG repository to let us test it.
Dimitris
|