#274 Cannot install rpm on SL6.2

Core (82)

Hi, I downloaded postfixadmin-2.3.5.noarch.rpm and tried to install it on SL6.2 and got the following:

Error: Package: postfixadmin-2.3.5-28.1.noarch (/postfixadmin-2.3.5.noarch)
Requires: pwdutils
Error: Package: postfixadmin-2.3.5-28.1.noarch (/postfixadmin-2.3.5.noarch)
Requires: mod_php_any
Error: Package: postfixadmin-2.3.5-28.1.noarch (/postfixadmin-2.3.5.noarch)
Requires: php_any_db

I have tried to find the missing files but without much luck, how do I proceed from here?



  • Christian Boltz

    Christian Boltz - 2012-05-02

    What is "SL6.2"? Scientific Linux 6.2? (at least that's the only one that makes sense - "SUSE Linux 6.2" (or was it named "S.u.S.E." at those times) would also match, but is from the stone age ;-)

    About your dependency problems: probably your distribution is using different package names.

    "pwdutils" is the package containing useradd and groupadd

    "mod_php_any" means mod_php* of any PHP version. Currently it means mod_php5, but it will also match mod_php6

    "php_any_db" is (at least on openSUSE) a Provides: in php5_mysql and php5_pgsql - in other words: any php5_$database module will satisfy it

    Please check how those packages are named in your distribution and tell me
    a) the package name
    b) the output of "rpm -q --provides" for each of those packages

    As a workaround, you can install the PostfixAdmin RPM with rpm --nodeps

  • Christian Boltz

    Christian Boltz - 2012-05-02
    • status: open --> pending
  • Rowland Penny

    Rowland Penny - 2012-05-03

    Yes SL6.2 is Scientific Linux 6.2, which is a clone of RHEL6.2 (Redhat Enterprise Linux) so if it will not install on SL6.2 it will not install on RHEL6.2 either (or CENTOS6.2)
    pwdutils would seem to be shadow-utils
    mod_php_any does not seem to exist
    php_any_db would seem to be php-mysql or php-pgsql

    I actually installed via the tarball and everything seems to work, so I downloaded the rpm and extracted it to a directory. Upon examination, the reason why it would not load became apparent, it is not a general rpm, it is aimed squarely at OpenSuse. Would it not be better to put suse into the rpm name?

  • Rowland Penny

    Rowland Penny - 2012-05-03
    • status: pending --> open
  • Christian Boltz

    Christian Boltz - 2013-03-24

    Indeed, including the distribution name in the RPM filename is a good idea. (It would be even better to have a one-fits-all, but I'm afraid this is near to impossible :-( )

    Can you please check the 2.3.6 RPMs? I additionally created a fedora RPM that should (hopefully) also work on RHEL, CentOS and SL.

  • Christian Boltz

    Christian Boltz - 2013-12-01

    No complaints since half a year probably means it's OK now ;-)

    Please reopen if I'm wrong ;-)

  • Christian Boltz

    Christian Boltz - 2013-12-01
    • status: open --> closed-fixed

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:

No, thanks