Found it:
You need to enable the repo atrpms.
Thanks anyway.
> Good day,
>
> I now installed SL4 ...
> It seems however that perl(SOAP::Lite) seems to be missing from it:
> --> Processing Dependency: perl(SOAP::Lite) for package:
> glite-data-catalog-api-perl
> --> Processing Dependency: perl(SOAP::Lite) for package:
> glite-data-transfer-api-perl
>
> (Note:
>     I did a minimal installation to safe hard disk space and
>     I will install any other package / dependency that is needed.
>     Why I tell this? I'm not sure if doing so also omits repos from the
> instaltion.
>
> )
> Did I do something wrong or should I just really user tarUI instead ?
> But personally I prefer not installing not-in-your-software-tree-files
> (wel atleast not over / ).
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Killian
>
> Jan Iven wrote:
>   
>> On 22/02/08 16:56, Killian De Volder wrote:
>>     
>>> Hello,
>>> I'm settings up a glite-UI and following this tutorial:
>>> https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LCG/GenericInstallGuide310.
>>> However at a certain point during the installation
>>> (https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LCG/GenericInstallGuide310#The_install)
>>>
>>> I get the next list of missing dependencies:
>>> Error: Missing Dependency: libboost_program_options.so.1 is needed by
>>> package glite-wms-common
>>>       
>> ..
>>
>>     
>>> (The tutorial has been written for SL4 and I am using SL51).
>>>       
>> So the SL5 "boost" RPM provides
>> libboost_thread.so.2 (etc) whereas your application has been linked
>> against an older version. Either you find a way to install the SL4
>> version on your SL5 box (which may cause other dependency issues,
>> unless you repackage it), or you are out of luck.
>>
>>     
>>> What would be the correct method to resolve this issue please?
>>>       
>> I would contact the developer team and see whether they have a
>> timeline for a SL5-compatible version. Given that CERN has only very
>> recently decided to do anything with SL*5, this may not be the case,
>> but external requests would help (perhaps) to raise the priority of
>> such a release.
>>
>> You might be able too run a SL4 virtual machine instead on your SL5
>> box. Or (if you want production stability instead of sorting out
>> packaging troubles) go back to SL4 for now.
>>
>> just my 0.02 €
>> Jan
>>
>>     
>
>
>