On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 10:27:37 -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > Ville Skyttä wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 16:39, Matthias Saou wrote: > > > > > >>Now... I'm posting here before bugzilla'ing this since I'd like to know > >>what the general opinion is regarding packages requiring some of their own > >>sub-packages like this. I really think it should be avoided since there are > >>some side-effects like this one that can arise. > > > > > > Agreed. But in case a dependency "loop" like this between some packages > > is not avoidable (in general, not in this particular case) and the order > > in which they are installed inside one transaction matters, one of them > > should use "PreReq" and the other "Requires" in order to break the loop > > in predictable fashion (== PreReq "wins"; the package containing it will > > be installed last). That's what I've heard the difference between > > PreReq and Requires is, anyway. > > > > > > Eh? jbj has confirmed on multiple occasions that there is NO DIFFERENCE > between PreReq and Requires. Sure about that? BuildPreReq and BuildRequires are equal. But quoting RPM documentation: \subsection dependencies_prereqs Prereqs Prereqs are different from requires only in that a PreReq is guaranteed to be installed before the package that contains the PreReq. PreReq's are used only to order packages, otherwise PreReq's are exactly the same as a Requires: dependency. -- Fedora Core release 2 (Tettnang) - Linux 2.6.7-1.494.2.2 loadavg: 1.00 1.21 1.47
