On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Panu Matilainen <<a href="mailto:pmatilai@redhat.com">pmatilai@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, devzero2000 wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
I don't think it is right to use context marked dependency (e.g.<br>
scriptlet deps ordering ) for ordering package installation, if the<br>
packages<br>
don't use these in first place<br>
(<a href="http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm-snapshot/s1-rpm-depend-manual-dependencies.html" target="_blank">http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm-snapshot/s1-rpm-depend-manual-dependencies.html</a>).<br>
<br>
If absolutely necessary and the automatic deps resolutions of rpm is not<br>
sufficient just use plain Requires: baz<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">There's nothing "wrong" in using context marked dependencies. In fact they're often the only way to ensure correct ordering in complex package sets / transactions (notably due to dependency loops that creep into packaging all too easily).<br>
</blockquote></div><blockquote><font color="#888888">
</font><br><font color="#888888">
- Panu -</font></blockquote></blockquote></div>Yes, I know. Perhaps this one is an example <a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437041">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=437041</a><br><br>
My position is that solving the rpm problems on dependency loop or bad rpm package would be better instead
of using workaround solutions. I
hope that you agreed on this. <br><br>I call workround because isn't elegant to have in the, for example, "baz" SPEC file Requires(pre): bar and "baz" not having an %pre section that call something of "bar". Al least, the meaning isn't obvious, almost for most people.<br>
<br>I could be wrong. If so it would be useful to
update the document, for example, "Fedora Packaging Guideline" and defining the "context marked dependecy" how a best practices, in some situation, to
assure the rpm install ordering, also if aren't defined any scriptlet section.<br><br>OK. In effect we disgress from the original question. <b><br><br></b>Sorry if the subject wasn't on the point. In every case look interesting<b>.</b> <br>
<br>Best Regards<br><b><br><br><br></b><br><br><br><br>