Dependency reciprocity : real world problem with httpd and httpd-suexec

Ville Skyttä ville.skytta at iki.fi
Tue Sep 7 21:24:21 UTC 2004


On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 23:27, Warren Togami wrote:

> Eh?  jbj has confirmed on multiple occasions that there is NO DIFFERENCE 
> between PreReq and Requires.

Well, it has been said by him and others so many times, so many
different ways, in so many contexts, with so many "affected" rpm
versions that it is not really clear to me (and I bet I'm not the only
one), no need to shout.  Even jbj's "confirmations" have been sort of
self-contradicting.

One such example is [1], where the first non-quoted paragraph from jbj
mentions "preserving the PreReq: guarantee" for resolving circular
dependencies with recent versions of rpm, and the last one says PreReq
is "not any more" used for that for the same versions of rpm AFAICT.

Whatever it's called nowadays, I don't care; The point made is still
valid though: if loops cannot be avoided and the order matters, they
should be made predictable with whatever tools are available, if any.

If PreReq does not "exist" in the sense it used to any more, one such
"tool" which supposedly nowadays at least partially replaces/provides
that functionality are "context markers" (ie. Requires(pre) and friends
if I've understood _that_ correctly).

[1] https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/rpm-metadata/2003-October/000095.html





More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list