[Fedora-packaging] Re: rpms/haddock/devel haddock.spec,1.2,1.3

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Fri Jun 30 13:06:41 UTC 2006

On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 15:58 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 14:31 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > I think, we should implement a policy to make
> > 
> > * Requires(pre|post)
> > mandatory instead of PreReq
> -1 for that wording, they are not the same thing.
> http://rpm.org/max-rpm-snapshot/s1-rpm-depend-manual-dependencies.html#S3-RPM-DEPEND-FINE-GRAINED
> On the other hand, +1 if you mean just that relying on PreReq to cover
> scriptlet dependencies is a no-no.
Originially, I was referring to PreReq in the context of Jens' spec
file: He is running /usr/bin/chcon in a %post scriptlet.

I.e. he actually wants Requires(post) and doesn't want PreReq.

And ... given the difference between older "PreReq" and newer
"PreReq" (==Require), described in the link above, I am even stronger in
favor of "disallowing PreReq", to avoid problems related to the
behavioral changes.

> > * To make file deps on tools being used in %pre|post scripts mandatory.
> +1 when the tools are really required.  An example when they are not is
> eg. the GTK+ icon cache entry at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ScriptletSnippets

C.f. Jens spec file: He is using /usr/bin/chcon in a %post scriptlet and
"PreReq: coreutils". 

This will break should /usr/bin/chcon be moved or removed.


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list