On 15.11.2007 12:41, Christopher Aillon wrote: > On 11/15/2007 10:43 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Bill Nottingham wrote: >> >>> Hans de Goede (j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx) said: >>>> Christopher Aillon wrote: >>>>> * Make sure that there are no cases of Requires(pre,post) >>>> Erm, why isn't the use of those perfectly "legal" >>> As I understand it, Requires(pre) is OK, Requires(post) is OK, >>> Requires(pre,post) is not. >> IIRC that's supposed to work these days (FC >= 6, RHEL >= 5). If not, >> file a bug... > Then we should consider updating our guidelines. This brings up a good > point, too. If a given package guideline exists to work around bugs > like this in the future, the guideline really must reference the bug # > so it can be easier to revisit at a future date. Agreed, albeit I'm not sure if the exact bug # is needed -- the information "need in FC > foo and RHEL > bar" is the important one. And maintaining that properly is more important due to EPEL, as we'll still have to deal with EPEL for EL4 for some years. CU knurd -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
