On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:09:53AM -0500, Paul Nasrat wrote: > On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 11:16 +0000, Martin Craig wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I get an apparent circular dependency when I use %config(noreplace) to > > mark configuration files. There is a matching dependency in the > > 'provides' and 'requires' lists for the RPM, of the form: > > > > config(mymodule) = mymodule_version > > > > Looking around this seems to be common in many rpms so I'm assuming it's > > not a problem. Could somebody confirm this for me, also what is the > > reason for this use of provides/requires? > > There isn't an issue as you already noted it's self-fulfilling within > the package. It's provided automagically, as are rpmlib requires, etc. > Yes, this is not an issue. However, its harmlessness is simply a side effect of this particular case. I consider this to be an instance of a egregious problem with RPM,, that is its ability to establish circular dependencies within groups of RPMs. This was observed with RH9 and RHEL3. And it was a problem then. > > IIRC one possible future thing that this would ease is to have config > subpackages split out automagically to enable package managed local > config packages. > I don't see any benefit of having circular or reflective dependencies like this. Dependency relationships break when they are defined as graphs instead of trees. Usually, abuse or deformation of well established data structures like this are considered to be kludges. -- Robert Lehr (concatenate 'string "bozzio" "@" "the-lehrs" ".com") _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
