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

Re: Requires(...) vs. PreReq



rms@1407.org (Rui Miguel Seabra) writes:

>> Forbidding dependency loops may make the used algorithms more
>> easily to implement, but is a horror for packagers. rpm (or upm)
>> should implement what is meant; (user-)scriptlets are violating
>> the principles of package management, but sometimes such low-level
>> methods (including 'Requires(...):') with non-intuitive syntax are
>> needed.
>
> <exitlurk>
> Couldn't the dependencies be a proper set? That would solve loops:
>   if what I need is in the set then all is fine.

This is true for installing the files. But Scriptlets and package
erasures need a special package-order. Else commands may be missing
and orphaned directories may be left over.

When I think about it... loops in Requires(...): (or PreReq:) should be
considered as packaging errors indeed.



Enrico




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