[Fedora-packaging] Re: rpms/haddock/devel haddock.spec,1.2,1.3
toshio at tiki-lounge.com
Fri Jun 30 16:31:09 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.
> On the other hand, +1 if you mean just that relying on PreReq to cover
> scriptlet dependencies is a no-no.
Maybe wording like:
The use of PreReq to install a package prior to installing this one has
been deprecated within rpm. Inside of spec files the Prereq tag should
be replaced with a plain Requires line or the
[http://rpm.org/max-rpm-snapshot/s1-rpm-depend-manual-dependencies.html#S3-RPM-DEPEND-FINE-GRAINED context marked Requires] that expresses when the requirement needs to be met.
> > * 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
What is the reason to use file dependencies? Clarity when comparing
Requires to scriptlets? To protect against programs moving to a
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Fedora-packaging