On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Jeff Johnson <n3...@mac.com> wrote: > > On Jan 13, 2011, at 8:49 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote: > > >>> > >> 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.. > > > > If this is true, then point me at the code that sorts Requires(foo): before > Requires:. > > I have never seen any rpm patches that change package ordering as you have > stated. > > 73 de Jeff
Per, You know what I'd like to see is a list of the ordering done by rpm.org and the ordering done by rpm5. In my past experience going thru and eliminating the loops and this very same procedure with Jeff, made me realize that Mandriva packages have a weird looping of dependencies defined in the specfile Requires: among the basesystem-minimal packages. And many go along the lines A->B->C->A just because of say "one binary" or "config file" that needs to be in place before the actual rpm gets installed. And I think you began to see those errors. So what I guess I'm trying to say is I am surprised that rpm.org got around this without those install errors. Two scenarios that I could see possibly different with rpm.org to rpm5 are: Rpm.org knows how to order when a binary or config file is needed to be in place before a package is installed to avoid rpm installation errors. Or the other scenario that I could believe is the rpm.org unpackages the contents of all the packages in a loop and then processes the pre, prein, post...etc. The question I have for both Jeff and Per, is flattening initial rpms packages to get these needed pieces in place before and actual chroot install begins and super unacceptable hack? Regards, Matt
