On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 08:31:56PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Oct 6, 2003, Axel Thimm <Axel Thimm physik fu-berlin de> wrote: > > > Yes, most certainly, but you do see the chicken-and-egg problem? > > Better to not depend on the order of the packages installed. > > Err... Isn't this what rpm dependencies are for? > > Sure enough, you may have to run rpm -F more than once, to get the rpm > updated in the first round, and everything else later, but I can't see > other problems. Do you? If rpm itself is broken and needs to be upgraded before performing any further steps, you loose. Unless of course you make all packages depend on rpm >= 4.1.1, but even then a buggy rpm would sort the dependencies according to its buggy ordering algorithm and install the wrong bits. To summarize the problem: Some suggestions for versioning concurrent packages for different RH/FC releases were to use the recent letters-are-older-than-numbers idiom from rpm, e.g. foo-1.2.3-4_rh9 < foo-1.2.3-4_1 or foo-1.2.3-4_rh9 < foo-1.2.3-4_0fdr1 which is broken for rpm up to the one shipped with RH8.0. I think the best suggestion was to set "Fedora Core 0.<value>" := "Red Hat Linux <value>", so that the resulting disttags compare letters to letters and numbers to numbers (so the rpm non-symmetry bug is not triggered), and the disttags sort still in chronological order, e.g. foo-1.2.3-4_fdr0.9 < foo-1.2.3-4_fdr1 Unfortunately nobody from RH commented on this. Bill? -- Axel Thimm physik fu-berlin de
Attachment:
pgp00052.pgp
Description: PGP signature