Distributions going smart & bugfixes?

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 05:13:57PM -0800, Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Friday, 09 January 2009, at 02:45:55 (+0200),
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> > I agree about the opal issue, but I think rpm dependency loops are
> > not a bug per se, but AFAIK even a planned feature from the
> > beginning. The "loops" are considered to be packages that can only
> > be installed together.
> 
> Not really true.

The ancient PreReq (by now replaced with modern Foo() syntax) and
friends tags were designed to reorder such loops/collections. At the
very least when these came into play a million years ago it was a
"feature, not a bug".

> In fact, in newer versions of RPM, dependency loops are reported as
> an error.

Probably depends on what rpm branch you're talking about - since
rpm.org is used in Fedora 10 and the latter is using more and more
such dependency loops/conglomerations it would be quite funny if the
Fedora rpm developers wouldn't notice killing their coworkers
work. But FWIW smart passes the dependency loops down to rpm 4.6.0 and
the latter doesn't complain.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.labix.org/pipermail/smart-labix.org/attachments/20090109/1b2dbe89/attachment-0003.pgp>