On Jan 13, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote: > 2011/1/13 Jeff Johnson <n3...@mac.com>: >> >> On Jan 13, 2011, at 5:29 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote: >> >>> >>> But given that Requires(post) indicates that it's required at >>> scriptlet time, shouldn't rpm consider this as coretuils>pam? >>> >> >> There is no "scriptlet time". >> >> There are >> 1) needed for installing >> 2) required while installed >> 3) needed for erasing >> relations used for ordering. >> >> These relations split into 1+2 and 2+3 "times" (or sets) so its possible to >> split a dependency loop with markers like Requires(post):. > Yes, but Requires(post) suggests that something is required during %post, > right? > Shouldn't rpm then sort Requires(post): before Requires:? >
Nope. Install pre-requisites are install pre-requistes. And the pre-requisites are the set 1+2, not 1 before 2. It could be made solely 1, but noone has ever tried a systematic packaging policy. >> >> But the usage case is too narrow to be generally effective, and >> its just as easy to arrange for the packaging to do the right ting. >> >>> This seems to be the behaviour we've had and based our packaging on in >>> cooker with rpm <= 4.6.. >>> >> >> (aside) >> Claim anything you wish about rpm behavior: what's in rpm-5.3 has >> hardly been changed in a decade. Its kinda ironic to hear the >> noise about rpm broke this and broke that! > Well, I dunno at which time it might've changed, but with rpm 4.6 > Requires(pre,prein,post,postun): were sorted to be ordered before > Requires:, which is something the packaging in cooker has been heavily > relying on.. rpm-4.6 removes all loops before ordering. 73 de Jeff
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
