RPM Community Forums

Mailing List Message of <rpm-devel>

Re: ordering issues

From: Matthew Dawkins <mattydaw@gmail.com>
Date: Thu 13 Jan 2011 - 17:53:34 CET
Message-ID: <AANLkTikPVCCdGctRepC5b1SfsFFJgEPED85P8GB93G3X@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Jeff Johnson <n3npq@mac.com> 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 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.
> A topological sort (with LOOP's) is what is done. Both the Tarjan SCCS
> algorithm
> from @rpm.org as well as what RPM has always done are present.
> Recent changes @rpm.org have added a Newer! Better! Bestest! ordering-only
> requirement for constructing an initrd (no other usage case has been
> reported
> or requested).
> Yes, Mandriva has weird looping issues. The dependencies that are "weird"
> are used
> consistently enough that the loops can be detected a priori if necessary.
> 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:
> The answer is this:
> rpm.org removes all loops initially.
> There is no getting around dependency loops.
> 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?
> Meanwhile I can likely help getting your UL boot-strapped w/o using
> rpm2cpio.
Well I'm pretty sure if we fix this for UL, we'll fix it for Mandriva and
vice versa. So I have no problem building chroots for the sake of testing
and posting different results if suggestions are made.

> 73 de Jeff
Received on Thu Jan 13 18:53:33 2011
Driven by Jeff Johnson and the RPM project team.
Hosted by OpenPKG and Ralf S. Engelschall.
Powered by FreeBSD and OpenPKG.