On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Tuesday 26 February 2008, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Pixel wrote:
as for me i'm not convinced that "Requires(pre) not implying Requires"
is a feature. I would be in favor of "Requires(xxx) implies Requires".
Agreed, permitting remove of (pre|post|...)-only dependencies because they
might not be strictly needed at runtime serves no purpose at all. It only
permits creating absurd situations like having to install another package
in order to be able to remove something you have installed.
FWIW, I agree for Requires(preun) and Requires(postun), but not for others.
What's the problem with allowing removal of stuff pulled in by Requires(pre)
or Requires(post) after the corresponding %pre or %post script has already
run and will never run again?
If they would never run again I'd agree, but they will on next upgrade of
that package. So removing things required by pre/post is in vain because
any upgrade to that package will just bring the dependency back.
- Panu -_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
https://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
