Dependency reciprocity : real world problem with httpd and httpd-suexec
Michael Schwendt
fedora at wir-sind-cool.org
Tue Sep 7 20:53:47 UTC 2004
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 10:27:37 -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> 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.
Sure about that? BuildPreReq and BuildRequires are equal. But quoting
RPM documentation:
\subsection dependencies_prereqs Prereqs
Prereqs are different from requires only in that a PreReq is guaranteed
to be installed before the package that contains the PreReq. PreReq's
are used only to order packages, otherwise PreReq's are exactly the same
as a Requires: dependency.
--
Fedora Core release 2 (Tettnang) - Linux 2.6.7-1.494.2.2
loadavg: 1.00 1.21 1.47
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list