Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay (educational games for young children) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190878 j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #128885|0 |1 is obsolete| | Attachment #128892|0 |1 is obsolete| | ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx 2006-05-11 13:06 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=128902) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128902&action=view) improved specfile > Ah, so you have a dependency loop, I didn't know that. It's possible that bug > 89500 isn't probably going to change anything then. Preferred fix: get rid of > the loop and use plain Requires. Other ideas that have worked at least sometime: > http://rpm.org/max-rpm-snapshot/s1-rpm-depend-manual-dependencies.html#S3-RPM-DEPEND-FINE-GRAINED > (...and owning the dirs in both packages is still an option...) Quoting from the above URL: "A plain Requires is enough to ensure proper installation order if there are no dependency loops present in the transaction. If dependency loops are present and cannot be avoided, packagers should strive to construct them in a way that the order of installation of the the this way interdependent packages does not matter." So owning dirs in both packages indeed seems the best idea, new -3 release doing just that attached. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review