On Aug 21, 2007, at 4:58 PM, Dan Stromberg - Datallegro wrote:
This works for ordering, not for dependency closure.
It seems to me like it should work fine. What am I missing?
For partial ordering through dependencies, P -> Q (as in order Q
before P) relations are
meaningless and harmless when Q doesn't exist.
For dependency closure, P -> Q (as in package P has Requires: Q) is
full stop failure.
There are many name space issues, when Q and Q' are functionally
equivalent
but not identically named, that dependency closure is more
susceptible than
ordering to failures.
Granted, you could have dependencies that contradict your bow
constraints... But then you could have an rpm option that says to
ignore
dependencies between bows.
One could ignore dependencies between bows, but then bow 0 may not be
populated with something necessary for a bow 1 package.
73 de Jeff
_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
