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

Re: suggests/requires in rpm



On Mon, January 24, 2005 3:29 pm, Alexandre Oliva said:
> The annotation I have in mind would go like `if upgrading from V-R <=
> v-r' (where v-r is presumed to be less than the current package V-R),
> then bring in the additional dependency.
>
> This addresses the issue of updates/upgrades bringing in new
> functionality, but not forcing them onto the user that chose to live
> without the new functionality after the upgrade that introduced it.

I think what you are saying is that you want the missingok dependencies
installed the first time, but not again if the user subsequently removes
them?

If so, is this annotation really required?  I think the following rules
accomplish the same thing:

If the currently installed version has the same missingok annotation as is
given in the new rpm, then install each dependency only if an early
version is currently installed (handle each such dependecy like rpm -F).

Otherwise, install each dependant rpm as if it were required, (ie. handle
like rpm -U, it must represent new functionality, or been recently made
optional).

Sean.



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