Re: Getting 3rd party RPM's via an OS installer?

[Jeff Johnson <n3npq jbj gmail com>]

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