Re: Doesn't "rpm -e" erase in reverse dependency order?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2/24/06, Jos Vos <jos@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 06:02:55PM -0800, Christian Goetze wrote:
>
> > # rpm -e foo bar baz
> >
> > it may choose to erase foo prior to bar, even though bar depends on foo.
> >
> > This means I cannot rely on the existence of features witn %postun
> > scriptlets, for example.
>
> OK, sorry I misinterpreted it... to answer this, you should define
> "depends" in the above sentence in more detail.  For installation
> (%post scripts etc.) you have to use "Prereq" (deprecated) or
> "Requires(post)" etc. (as you probably know), as just "Requires"
> does not affect the order *within* a translation.
Just a nit.  Jeff has told me time and time again that for the longest
time PreReq has absolutely the same semantic as Requires.  That is
there is no difference between the two.

Cheers...james
>

_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list

[Index of Archives]     [RPM Ecosystem]     [Linux Kernel]     [Red Hat Install]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Watch]     [Red Hat Development]     [Red Hat]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [IETF Discussion]

  Powered by Linux