-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 15 January 2011, R P Herrold wrote:
> 4. foreach ELEMENT in MANIFEST, walk a
> rpm -ivh --root=(chroot) --noscripts (ELEMENT)
> and identify anything missing, re-order seqecnce to cut noise
> if it offends, and tweak steps 2 and 3 a
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Matthew Dawkins wrote:
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?
I have no idea what a 'super unacceptable hack' is as a goal
good
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
> 2011/1/13 Jeff Johnson :
> >
> > 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
On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:16 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
> 2011/1/13 Jeff Johnson :
>>
>> On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen 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 o
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
> On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Matthew Dawkins wrote:
>
>
> Per,
>
> You know what I'd like to see is a list of the ordering done by rpm.organd
> the ordering done by rpm5. In my past experience going thru and
> eliminating the loops and th
2011/1/13 Jeff Johnson :
>
> On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen 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 cook
On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen 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 Jan 13, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Matthew Dawkins wrote:
>
> 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
2011/1/13 Jeff Johnson :
>
> 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
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Jeff Johnson 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 pa
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
On Jan 13, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
> 2011/1/13 Jeff Johnson :
>>
>> 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?
>>>
>>
>>
2011/1/13 Jeff Johnson :
>
> 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 instal
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 install
2011/1/13 Jeff Johnson :
>
> On Jan 13, 2011, at 4:24 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
>
>>
>> So Id say that there's definitively something buggy going on with rpm here..
>>
>
> Try printing out the LOOP messages you've chosen to hide.
>
> Then fix your LOOP's.
>
> If claiming "something buggy going
On Jan 13, 2011, at 4:24 AM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
>
> So Id say that there's definitively something buggy going on with rpm here..
>
Try printing out the LOOP messages you've chosen to hide.
Then fix your LOOP's.
If claiming "something buggy going on with rpm here" makes you feel better
2011/1/12 Per Øyvind Karlsen :
> 2011/1/12 Per Øyvind Karlsen :
>> I've run into some ordering issues installing into a fresh chroot:
>>
>> installing findutils-4.5.9-1mdv2011.0.i586.rpm
>> nss_tcb-1.0.6-0mdv2011.0.i586.rpm
>> cracklib-dicts-2.8.16-2
2011/1/12 Per Øyvind Karlsen :
> I've run into some ordering issues installing into a fresh chroot:
>
> installing findutils-4.5.9-1mdv2011.0.i586.rpm
> nss_tcb-1.0.6-0mdv2011.0.i586.rpm
> cracklib-dicts-2.8.16-2mdv2011.0.i586.rpm
> perl-base-5.12.2-5mdv2011.0.i586.rpm setup
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Per Øyvind Karlsen wrote:
> I've run into some ordering issues installing into a fresh chroot:
>
> installing findutils-4.5.9-1mdv2011.0.i586.rpm
> nss_tcb-1.0.6-0mdv2011.0.i586.rpm
> cracklib-dicts-2.8.16-2mdv2011.0.i586.rpm
> perl-base-5.1
I've run into some ordering issues installing into a fresh chroot:
installing findutils-4.5.9-1mdv2011.0.i586.rpm
nss_tcb-1.0.6-0mdv2011.0.i586.rpm
cracklib-dicts-2.8.16-2mdv2011.0.i586.rpm
perl-base-5.12.2-5mdv2011.0.i586.rpm setup-2.7.18-2mdv2011.0.i586.rpm
shadow-utils-4.1.4.2-8mdv2011.0
20 matches
Mail list logo
