On Aug 9, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 11:58:57 -0400 > Jeffrey Johnson <n3...@me.com> wrote: >> Maybe. I can say that the existing rpm implementation has been used >> by many for years without any change whatsoever. >> >> FIx your LOOP before guessing at what is broken. > > But THERE IS NO LOOP. RPM shows loop due to some imaginary dependency. >
Before shouting (or comparing to rpm-4.5 behavior), you need some additional information. Meanwhile you have reported a LOOP message (and you have already seen that the _dependency_whiteout macro changes/simplifies rpm behavior). > Package A requires package B which requires /some/dir from package FHS. > But my RPM shows: package A requires package B which requires /some/dir > from package C which requires package D which requires /some/other/dir > from package E which requires package A. And package C does not contain > /some/dir, nor package E contains /some/other/dir. RPM sees dependencies > which are not there, so it reports loop. Details in my previous mail > rpm-5.x has additional dependency rules: 1) every file "requires" its parent directory 2) every symlink "requires" its target end-point I put the "requires" in quote solely because yoi will _NOT_ see this information with rpm -qp --requires foo*.rpm queries. Otherwise the additional "requires" behave exactly like other Requires:, both as dependency assertions and as pre-requsites for topologically sorting. 73 de Jeff _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en