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

Warren Togami wtogami at redhat.com
Tue Sep 7 20:27:37 UTC 2004


Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 16:39, Matthias Saou wrote:
> 
> 
>>Now... I'm posting here before bugzilla'ing this since I'd like to know
>>what the general opinion is regarding packages requiring some of their own
>>sub-packages like this. I really think it should be avoided since there are
>>some side-effects like this one that can arise.
> 
> 
> Agreed.  But in case a dependency "loop" like this between some packages
> is not avoidable (in general, not in this particular case) and the order
> in which they are installed inside one transaction matters, one of them
> should use "PreReq" and the other "Requires" in order to break the loop
> in predictable fashion (== PreReq "wins"; the package containing it will
> be installed last).  That's what I've heard the difference between
> PreReq and Requires is, anyway.
> 
> 

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

Warren Togami
wtogami at redhat.com





More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list