On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 13:24 -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 02:15:18PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > 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. > > No no no no no no no no! > > There is literally no difference between PreReq: and Requires:, rpm-4.4 > and beyond is incapable of either setting or testing RPMSENSE_PREREQ. Good to hear this has happened in rpm >= 4.4, thanks. However, all versions of rpm in _shipped, non-test_ FC versions as of now (IOW rpm <= 4.3.2) do make the distinction I described above, right? > > 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. > > Erasure ordering has always been implemented as the reverse of > install ordering., so "unimplemented" is more FUD. FUD or not, I did not invent that. Quoting you from some 2 years ago, rpm-4.[12] days (which is less than "always", I presume), both reports CLOSED DEFERRED: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/89740 - "Yup, rpm does not do erasure ordering." - "Not implemented means exactly that." https://bugzilla.redhat.com/89500 - "Ah yes, erase ordering has never been implemented in rpm."
