[LON-CAPA-admin] Missing Dependency: perl(Params::Validate) >= 0.76

[Stuart Raeburn]

Paul,

Thanks for reporting this.

The perl-Params-Validate rpm for 64 bit for CentOS 5 has been added to  
the CentOS 5 repos on install.loncapa.org.

This RPM was there in the past, but evidently got deleted a few days  
ago during the process of moving several RPMs from testing to  
production repos, to satisfy dependencies for 2.9.0.

Stuart Raeburn
MSU LON-CAPA group

Quoting Paul Omernik <paul.omernik at ndsu.edu>:

> Greetings,
>
> I am getting these issues after a fresh install of CentOS 5.5 on our library
> server (ouch) (I backed up /home and /etc, no need for /etc on cross-grade
> though, it seems).
>
>     1:perl-DateTime-0.4304-1.0.centos5.lc.x86_64 from
>> loncapa-updates-basearch has depsolving problems
>>       --> Missing Dependency: perl(Params::Validate) >= 0.76 is needed by
>> package 1:perl-DateTime-0.4304-1.0.centos5.lc.x86_64
>> (loncapa-updates-basearch)
>>     1:perl-DateTime-0.4304-1.0.centos5.lc.x86_64 from
>> loncapa-updates-basearch has depsolving problems
>>       --> Missing Dependency: perl(Params::Validate) is needed by package
>> 1:perl-DateTime-0.4304-1.0.centos5.lc.x86_64 (loncapa-updates-basearch)
>>     Error: Missing Dependency: perl(Params::Validate) is needed by package
>> 1:perl-DateTime-0.4304-1.0.centos5.lc.x86_64 (loncapa-updates-basearch)
>>     Error: Missing Dependency: perl(Params::Validate) >= 0.76 is needed by
>> package 1:perl-DateTime-0.4304-1.0.centos5.lc.x86_64
>> (loncapa-updates-basearch)
>>
>
>
> I've probably been staring at config files way too long to make sense of
> anything any more.  Am I right in guessing that
> perl-Params-Util-0.35-1.0.centos5.lc.x86_64 has nothing to do with the
> perl-Params-Validate package that seems to not exist anywhere?
>
> Everything seems to go fine until attempting the install of
> LONCAPA-prerequisites.  Server is up-to-date, and, again, a fresh install
> off a netinst image, which is the same process I used on the two access
> servers some time ago.
>
> The good news is that this seems to be the only issue, as the issues that
> stem from forcing and/or ignoring the dependency all seem to point back to
> this package.
>
> Paul
>