On Mon, 2016-04-11 at 12:53 +0200, Michael Mraka wrote:
> And for the rest
>
> rpm -q --whatrequires E
> rpm -q --whatrequires F
> rpm -q --whatrequires G
> rpm -q --whatrequires H
> rpm -q --whatrequires I
>
> it depends on which strategy we will agree. It's either "ric
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 01:39:00PM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> Hmm, spoke too soon. I guess this is indeed a bug in rpm. It's true
> that for
>
> Requires: (G if H)
>
> 'G' and '!H' is put in the index, so that 'rpm -q --whatrequires G' will
> return 'richdep' and 'rpm -q --whatrequire
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 01:19:30PM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:53:35PM +0200, Michael Mraka wrote:
> > So to make things consistent I'd propose to fix
> > rpm -q --whatrequires H
> > which currently returns "none". And fix --whatsuggests, --whatrecommends,
> > e
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 12:53:35PM +0200, Michael Mraka wrote:
> So to make things consistent I'd propose to fix
> rpm -q --whatrequires H
> which currently returns "none". And fix --whatsuggests, --whatrecommends, etc.
> to work the same way.
Wait, don't make "rpm -q --whatrequires H" return r
Thank you guys for your responses.
Not surprisingly - different people, different expectations :).
Miroslav Suchy wrote:
% In rpm I would like to have semantic "which package will stop working if I
remove this package".
% I.e. when I run:
% rpm -e foo
% then I will get some errors that foo ca
On Thu, 2016-04-07 at 11:17 +0200, Michael Mraka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while trying to fix bug 1303311 I found out that output of
> --whatrequires is not (very well) defined for rich dependencies.
> I've already discussed it with Lubos K. but we come with couple
> of different solutions not sure which
Dne 7.4.2016 v 13:02 Pascal Terjan napsal(a):
>> rpm -q --whatrequires E
>> rpm -q --whatrequires F
>
>none
>
>> What if only one of them is currently installed?
* richdep for that one which is installed (if only one of them is installed)
* none if both are installed.
I would say that rpm
On 04/07/2016 11:17 AM, Michael Mraka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while trying to fix bug 1303311 I found out that output of
> --whatrequires is not (very well) defined for rich dependencies.
> I've already discussed it with Lubos K. but we come with couple
> of different solutions not sure which one is the
Dne 7.4.2016 v 11:17 Michael Mraka napsal(a):
> I'd like to hear your unbiased opinion that's why I don't include
> neither my preferences nor current rpm behavior for now.
>
> An example to think about - have a package with following requires installed
> richdep.spec:
> Requires: A
> Req
On 7 April 2016 at 11:49, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 7.4.2016 v 11:17 Michael Mraka napsal(a):
>
>> How does this work in other distributions?
>>
>> I'd like to hear your unbiased opinion that's why I don't include
>> neither my preferences nor current rpm behavior for now.
>
> In rpm I would lik
Dne 7.4.2016 v 11:17 Michael Mraka napsal(a):
> How does this work in other distributions?
>
> I'd like to hear your unbiased opinion that's why I don't include
> neither my preferences nor current rpm behavior for now.
In rpm I would like to have semantic "which package will stop working if I
Hi,
while trying to fix bug 1303311 I found out that output of
--whatrequires is not (very well) defined for rich dependencies.
I've already discussed it with Lubos K. but we come with couple
of different solutions not sure which one is the best (or better
say expected by admins).
So I'd like to
12 matches
Mail list logo
