On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 01:50:35PM -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 07:40:15PM +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote: > > jbj@xxxxxxxxxx (Jeff Johnson) writes: > > > > >> > > Don't do this: > > >> > > > > >> > > Requires(pre,post): /sbin/chkconfig > > >> > > > > >> > > but do that instead: > > >> > > > > >> > > Requires(pre): /sbin/chkconfig > > >> > > Requires(post): /sbin/chkconfig > > > ... > > > I couldn't care less what you do as packagers, the syntax is there, and > > > you can use as you see fit. It Simply Does Not Matter in the majority of > > > cases. > > > > Sorry, when I disagree, but when with: > > > > | Requires(pre,postun): test-A > > > > 'test-A' will be installed *after* %pre, then it matters. Or do you know a > > way to determine if a package belongs to the "majority of cases", or if it > > belongs to the "minority" where 'Requires(pre,postun)' fails miserably? > > > > Nope, %pre does not matter, because both %pre/%post are marked as "install" > context independent of their "pre" or "post" qualities. > > The only known useful case for the markings is the libtermcap <-> bash loop, > where "install" versus "erase" context is used to snip a loop. > > In practice, there are increasingly ever more dependency loops in the distro, > and rpmlib happily ignores all relations in the loop equally. That leads > to a degree of indeterminancy in installing, and ignoring all relations > rather than a single relation is perhaps to blame, but the problem is loops, > not otherwise, and needs to be handled by identifying loops and carefully > examining where the loop needs to be snipped, not through *.spec usage. > > > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/118773 > > > > Which has nothing important to do with any problem, as > Requires(pre): > Requires(post): > works just fine. > > I will prevent the syntax > Requires(pre,post): > if you do not have the discipline to not use known broken syntax. > Apologies if I sound perhaps more vehement and angry. The combining of PreReq: and Requires: occurred in RHL 7.0. The busted syntax has been known for at least a year. To see these issues *still* being discussed without any ability whatsoever to change already deployed rpm, or to be able to change rpm in any RHEL product, is quite distressing to me. I'd much rather spend my time "fixing" rpm problems than discussing very ancient history. Alas, that is not possible. So my apologies to both Ville and Enrico, there is certainly no bad will from me towards either of you. 73 de Jeff -- Jeff Johnson ARS N3NPQ jbj@xxxxxxxxxx (jbj@xxxxxxx) Chapel Hill, NC
