Le jeudi 12 juin 2008, Colin Guthrie a écrit :

> >
> > I think it's probably the -devel package's fault for not dealing with
> > it's old name.
>
> Sorry, this is probably my fault. I am using --keep by default. --nokeep
> allowed hte upgrade fine.

And even you were using --keep, it seems there is an urpmi bug here.

Can you find in your log the list of packages added/removed to check what was
the problem. As I didn't update my x86_64 box yet, I'll be able to reproduce.

Thanks.