note about packaging init scripts

[Ville Skyttä]

On Fri, 2005-03-11 at 13:24 -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 02:15:18PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 16:06 -0500, Tim Powers wrote:
> > > On Mar 10, 2005, at 3:56 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Don't "PreReq:" (which gets treated like a simple "Requires:" IIRC), 
> > 
> > Almost.  In case of circular dependencies, PreReq "wins" over Requires.
> > In the vast majority of cases (ie. when there are no circular
> > dependencies), they're equivalent, and rpm will do the right thing at
> > install time.
> 
> No no no no no no no no!
> 
> There is literally no difference between PreReq: and Requires:, rpm-4.4
> and beyond is incapable of either setting or testing RPMSENSE_PREREQ.

Good to hear this has happened in rpm >= 4.4, thanks.  However, all
versions of rpm in _shipped, non-test_ FC versions as of now
(IOW rpm <= 4.3.2) do make the distinction I described above, right?


> > AFAIK, erasure ordering is still unimplemented though, and the only
> > thing a packager can do is to "manually" take that into account in
> > specfiles where necessary.
>
> Erasure ordering has always been implemented as the reverse of
> install ordering., so "unimplemented" is more FUD.

FUD or not, I did not invent that.  Quoting you from some 2 years ago,
rpm-4.[12] days (which is less than "always", I presume), both reports
CLOSED DEFERRED:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/89740
- "Yup, rpm does not do erasure ordering."
- "Not implemented means exactly that."

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/89500
- "Ah yes, erase ordering has never been implemented in rpm."