On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 16:06 -0500, Tim Powers wrote: > On Mar 10, 2005, at 3:56 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote: > <snip> > > > > Don't "PreReq:" (which gets treated like a simple "Requires:" IIRC), Almost. In case of circular dependencies, PreReq "wins" over Requires. In the vast majority of cases (ie. when there are no circular dependencies), they're equivalent, and rpm will do the right thing at install time. AFAIK, erasure ordering is still unimplemented though, and the only thing a packager can do is to "manually" take that into account in specfiles where necessary. > > use > > "Requires(pre):" and for that matter "Requires(post):" as well. Don't > > do > > this: > > > > Requires(pre,post): /sbin/chkconfig > > > > but do that instead: > > > > Requires(pre): /sbin/chkconfig > > Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig > > Every time I see this I get confused. jbj: please tell us whether or > not we should be doing this. I remember the stone-age when it was > introduced, abused, and we were told not to do this anymore. What's the > current recommendation? I'm not jbj, but here's something related: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/118780 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/118773
