On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 15:58 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 14:31 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > I think, we should implement a policy to make > > > > * Requires(pre|post) > > mandatory instead of PreReq > > -1 for that wording, they are not the same thing. > http://rpm.org/max-rpm-snapshot/s1-rpm-depend-manual-dependencies.html#S3-RPM-DEPEND-FINE-GRAINED > > On the other hand, +1 if you mean just that relying on PreReq to cover > scriptlet dependencies is a no-no. > +1 Maybe wording like: The use of PreReq to install a package prior to installing this one has been deprecated within rpm. Inside of spec files the Prereq tag should be replaced with a plain Requires line or the [http://rpm.org/max-rpm-snapshot/s1-rpm-depend-manual-dependencies.html#S3-RPM-DEPEND-FINE-GRAINED context marked Requires] that expresses when the requirement needs to be met. > > * To make file deps on tools being used in %pre|post scripts mandatory. > > +1 when the tools are really required. An example when they are not is > eg. the GTK+ icon cache entry at > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets > What is the reason to use file dependencies? Clarity when comparing Requires to scriptlets? To protect against programs moving to a different package? -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
