On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:16 PM, Per Řyvind Karlsen wrote:
> 2011/1/13 Jeff Johnson <email@example.com>:
>> On Jan 13, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Per Řyvind 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..
>>>> If this is true, then point me at the code that sorts Requires(foo): before Requires:.
>>> I wish I could point to the specific code, but wrapping my head around
>>> lib/order.c isn't that easy, otherwise I'd probably just jack the code
>>> in question and be done with it already rather than asking for help
>>> here.. ;)
>> Hint: What you suggested, that Requires(pre): etc are sorted before Requires:,
>> has never been implemented in RPM. Or show me the code and prove me wrong ;-)
> Well, I wish I could, here's the last rpm-4.6.1-5 package that was in
> cooker before the switch though:
> For it not being implemented, would it be a sane behaviour that's
> feasible to implement?
Anything can be implemented.
is pointless. all relations are PreReq: re-adding a bit just adds
complexity but solves nothing: if all relations are semantically
PreReq: why does there need to be a RPMSENSE_PREREQ bit at all?
And this patch
attempting to make
PreReq: == Requires(pre)
is just wrong.
But you got one degree of freedom to queue packages while
Add whatever logic you want. The killer is demonstrating
Do no harm.
Received on Thu Jan 13 19:01:31 2011
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s