On Wednesday, 24 November 2004, at 09:15:19 (+0100), Diana Bosio wrote:
> And in any case having an rpm requiring and providing the very same > file is not logical and very confusing, it sounds like a hack, and > an ugly one at that.
It's not at all confusing, and it's certainly quite logical.
If it really sounds logical to you, then probably you might be able to solve this problem: in a village where the only barber available shaves only men that are not able to shave themselves, who shaves the barber?
I mean, let's not confuse exceptional cases, like bash for instance, and what should be "normal" cases, why an rpm which is not a system rpm should require and provide the same functionality?
bash does not provide /bin/sh nor /bin/bash, at least not on my system, as you can see below. We can maybe start making a case for the config(*) line, I am not sure. In any case it might be valid and predictable for you and concerning bash, but I have a plethora of rpms providing and requiring the same library, and it is not a system library that they might require in a post install script, but simply a wrong way of building the rpm...Take bash for example. It requires /bin/sh and /bin/bash for shell scripts (e.g., %post). This is perfectly valid and predictable. bash also provides these things, obviously, which is again perfectly valid and predictable.
# grep libcgsi_plugin_gsoap_2.3.so * glite-data-transfer-cli-1.0.1-1_N20041121.i386.rpm_deps.txt:libcgsi_plugin_gsoap_2.3.so new_glite-data-transfer-cli-1.0.1-1_N20041121.i386.rpm_deps.txt:libcgsi_plugin_gsoap_2.3.so new_glite-data-transfer-cli-1.0.1-1_N20041122.i386.rpm_deps.txt:libcgsi_plugin_gsoap_2.3.so # rpm -qa | grep bash bash-2.05b-29.0.3 # rpm -q --requires bash-2.05b-29.0.3 /bin/bash /bin/sh /bin/sh /bin/sh config(bash) = 2.05b-29.0.3 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3) libdl.so.2 libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.0) libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.1) libtermcap.so.2 mktemp rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [root@lxb1424 deps]# rpm -q --provides bash-2.05b-29.0.3 bash2 config(bash) = 2.05b-29.0.3 bash = 2.05b-29.0.3
Once again, how do I distinguish from a circular dependency that is "not at all confusing and quite logical" (according to you) and a bug that I have to report?The real problem here is that your script needs to be enhanced to account for these things.
Diana
Michael
-- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <mej@xxxxxxxxx> n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "With every kiss our love is like brand new, and every star up in the sky was made for me and you. Still we both know that the road is long. But we know that we will be together because our love is strong." -- Firehouse, "Love of a Lifetime"
_______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
-- CERN, European Organization for Nuclear Research IT Department, Grid Middleware Geneva 23, CH-1211, Switzerland Tel: ++ 41 22 767 4374 Fax: ++ 41 22 767 7155
_______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
