[Rpm-maint] allow to remove Requires(pre) or not?

Panu Matilainen pmatilai at redhat.com
Thu Feb 28 06:41:06 UTC 2008

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Ville Skyttä wrote:

> On Tuesday 26 February 2008, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Pixel wrote:
>>> as for me i'm not convinced that "Requires(pre) not implying Requires"
>>> is a feature. I would be in favor of "Requires(xxx) implies Requires".
>> Agreed, permitting remove of (pre|post|...)-only dependencies because they
>> might not be strictly needed at runtime serves no purpose at all. It only
>> permits creating absurd situations like having to install another package
>> in order to be able to remove something you have installed.
> FWIW, I agree for Requires(preun) and Requires(postun), but not for others.
> What's the problem with allowing removal of stuff pulled in by Requires(pre)
> or Requires(post) after the corresponding %pre or %post script has already
> run and will never run again?

If they would never run again I'd agree, but they will on next upgrade of 
that package. So removing things required by pre/post is in vain because 
any upgrade to that package will just bring the dependency back.

 	- Panu -

More information about the Rpm-maint mailing list