Re: installing order != dependencies ?

["James Olin Oden" <james oden gmail com>]

On 11/2/06, Tim Mooney <mooney dogbert cc ndsu nodak edu> wrote:
> In regard to: Re: installing order != dependencies ?, James Olin Oden said...:
>
> > On 11/2/06, Andrei Kazarov <Andrei Kazarov cern ch> wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I have a problem with installing 2 dependent packages with "rpm -i": it
> >> seems that the packages are installed on order that I give in the
> >> command line, and not in the order of dependency. E.g. if PackageA
> >> requires PackageB and I do
> >>
> >>  > rpm -i PackageA.rpm PackageB.rpm
> >>
> >> then PackageA is installed before PackageB. I need B to be installed
> >> first, because in PackageA %post stage I need to access some files in
> >> PackageB.
> >>
> >> How can I guarantee the correct order not relying on the order of
> >> packages in rpm -i?
> >>
> > Can you send a link to said packages srpms?
> >
> > Beyond that do you have:
> >
> >   Requires: PackageA
> >
> > in the preamble of PackageB?
> >
>
> Remember that "Requires" isn't the same as "PreReq".  Jeff can give
> a better explanation, but if PackageA must be installed *before* PackageB,
> rather than at the same time as PackageB, then try using "PreReq"
> instead of "Requires".
No Requires, in any modern versions of RPM is the same as PreReq.  The
difference was so fragile to begin with that it was not worth
maintaining.  Believe me I work with Jeff and one his favorite rants
is about the equivelance of "requires" and "prereqs".

> Jeff also added more fine-grained controls in RPM 4.0.1, for doing
> stuff like this:
>
>        Requires(pre): /path/to/command/from/packageA
This is true though the goodness of this code is really unknown to me.
Might do what is intended.

...james