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

Re: Re: Re: New Dependecy check based of functions



On Thu, 2002-08-08 at 20:18, Leibovich Family wrote:
> Hello, Peter Bowen,
> 
> Correct - I wasn't pretty sure of what I said.
> 	Anyway there's no reason database won't store (and look for) the actual
> 	file, so that changing a certain package name won't affect installation

For most things, changing the package name won't be a problem.  Using
perl as the example again, rpm -q --requires perl gives me:

rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
ld-linux.so.2
libcrypt.so.1
libc.so.6
libdl.so.2
libm.so.6
libnsl.so.1
libutil.so.1
libgdbm.so.2
/usr/bin/perl
libcrypt.so.1(GLIBC_2.0)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2)
libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.0)
libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.1)
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)

The first 3 are internal RPM requirements, and the remainer are either
sonames or are file dependencies.  RPM will look for a package that
provides, for example, libcrypt.so.2.  On my system this is provided by
glibc-2.2.5-37.  So, your wish that things don't depend on package names
is generally true.

Thanks.
Peter 






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