Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: childplay_plugins - Plugins for childsplay 
(educational games for young children)


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190878


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Attachment #128885|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |
 Attachment #128892|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |




------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-05-11 13:06 EST -------
Created an attachment (id=128902)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128902&action=view)
improved specfile

> Ah, so you have a dependency loop, I didn't know that.  It's possible that
bug
> 89500 isn't probably going to change anything then.  Preferred fix: get rid
of
> the loop and use plain Requires.  Other ideas that have worked at least
sometime:
>
http://rpm.org/max-rpm-snapshot/s1-rpm-depend-manual-dependencies.html#S3-RPM-DEPEND-FINE-GRAINED

> (...and owning the dirs in both packages is still an option...)

Quoting from the above URL:
"A plain Requires is enough to ensure proper installation order if there are no
dependency loops present in the transaction. If dependency loops are present
and cannot be avoided, packagers should strive to construct them in a way that
the order of installation of the the this way interdependent packages does not
matter."

So owning dirs in both packages indeed seems the best idea, new -3 release
doing just that attached.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to