note about packaging init scripts

[Jeff Johnson]

On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 07:12:12PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> 
> 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."
> 

>From context, one is supposed to infer "correctly.", as in
	rpm does not do erasure order sufficiently correctly.

No matter what, there is an implementation, erasure ordering is
the reverse of install ordering. That turns out not to be sufficiently
correct.

The final answer will be to incorporate the ordering from the
smart package manager into rpm. Gustavo was wise enough to 
realize that a dependency graph should label nodes as "package-operation"
rather than "package", thereby permitting explicit tsort relations like
	Order "package-install" before "package-erase".
There are other ramifications too.

Meanwhile, as we all know, no one has ever bothered to set up the
necessary QA to insure that erasures, indeed, are well tracked by
dependencies, mainly because install/upgrade, not erasure, is
what is mainly of interest.

Meanwhile, now thanks to Tim Waugh's careful maintenance of bash
over the years, the syntactical sugar of Requires(post): et al can
be automated, removing Yet Another error prone process adding
dependencies to *.spec files.

73 de Jeff

-- 
Jeff Johnson	ARS N3NPQ
jbj at redhat.com (jbj at jbj.org)
Chapel Hill, NC