On 01/24/2011 09:02 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Rich Megginson (rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx) said: >> Ok. Do I need any Requires at all for this? Or should I just >> remove that line from the spec? > > I believe folding any requirements for %posttrans scripts into > 'Requires(post)' should be sufficient. Plain old "Requires: foo" is better for %posttrans. Requires(post) and such have ordering implications that are best avoided when not needed, and %posttrans doesn't require any particular ordering. FWIW I'm considering allowing Requires(posttrans) to be handled as regular requires for now (which is how older rpms happened to treat any unknown qualifiers). The correct implementation of Requires(posttrans) semantics is twistier than that but it's a reasonable approximation. - Panu - -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
