On Tue, Apr 15, 2008, Jeff Johnson wrote:

> On Apr 15, 2008, at 7:29 AM, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>>
>> D: ========== recording tsort relations
>> D: ========== tsorting packages (order, #predecessors, #succesors, tree,
>> Ldepth, Rbreadth)
>> D:     0    0    0    1    0    0 +perl-util-5.10.0-20080414
>> D: ========== successors only (938772 bytes)
>> D:     1    0    0    2    0    1 -perl-5.10.0-20080413
>
> AFAICT, this transaction installs perl-util and erases perl.
>
> Which means that perl is _NOT_ installed at the end of the transaction.
>
> Hence dependencies on perl are not satisifed because perl is to be erased.
> Is that the case?

Very interesting. Ok, this explains why RPM thinks the dependency is
no longer filfulled. Remains just the new question why RPM thinks that
"perl" should be removed in this transaction?

The perl-util.spec is this:
http://cvs.openpkg.org/fileview?f=openpkg-src/perl-util/perl-util.spec

And the command is just "rpm -U perl-util*.rpm".
Why does RPM 5.1.0 think that "perl" should be deinstalled at all?
This was neither requested on the CLI nor is it configured in the
perl-util.spec AFAIK. Strange, strange...

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
                                       rse@engelschall.com
                                       www.engelschall.com