Hmmm... Seems like I may be talking in one corner while someone else is acting out of another. Quoting:
http://bugzilla.wpkg.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79 --- Comment #11 from Rainer Meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2007-11-06 09:01:46 --- ...<some good stuff about dependancies snipped>... With my changes I can have dependent packages with absolutely lowest priority (e.g. prio 1) without even adding them directly to the profile. They still get installed _before_ the package which depends on it (which is correct from my point of view). ... So.... I guess I should drop this thread and pick up my thoughts in the bugzilla commentary instead, if necessary. Thanks! Twanfox On 11/6/07, Twan Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That makes some logical sense, but at the same time, I have to ask this. > Is that the way it should be? Logically, when one says 'depends on', they > don't usually mean 'depends on, if the priority is higher'. Or, stated > another way, it seems silly to depend on a secondary attribute to define > proper package order in regards to dependancies when it can very easily be > manipulated (by the unknowing or the foolish) into the reverse order. > > Perhaps, if priority is still to be the defining factor of install order, > wpkg can log a warning that "dependancy of <package x> set to install after > <package y> based on priority" or perhaps a configured setting that will > automatically kick down packages dependant on others to a lower priority by > default (dependancy priority - 1) regardless of what the package's priority > is. This would eliminate the potential to misconfigure things. > > Thoughts? > > Twanfox > > > On 11/5/07, Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dr. Frank Lee schrieb: > > > <installing MS bugfixes> > > > > > >> I understand that higher priority packages are going to install > > first. I > > >> know that, if one package/profile depends on another, that the other > > >> package/profile will get installed as well, but does that imply the > > >> dependancy will be installed first regardless of priority? In some > > cases, I > > >> could see that as being a requirement. Software B requires Software A > > to be > > >> installed first to register properly, but due to them being set at > > the same > > >> priority, B installs first, then A, missing the required > > configuration > > >> steps. > > > > > >> How does WPKG handle dependancies and how does it deal with order of > > >> installation? If this is already answered in a FAQ somewhere, I > > apologize > > >> for not having searched there first. I haven't had the luxury of time > > to > > >> disect the code to read my answer directly. > > > > > > (I'm replying 'cos I think I contributed the start of the 'dependancy' > > > code...) > > > > > > The 'dependancy' just adds the packages to the list, which is then > > > installed in order of priority. If 'foo' depends on 'bar' being > > present > > > for 'foo' to install properly, 'bar' ought to have a higher priority > > than > > > 'foo'. > > > > > > In the example above, B should be set at a higher priority than A for > > > success. (I usually have 900-999 as the priority for OS patches, > > 700-799 > > > for antivirus etc, 500-599 for 'mission critical' applications, > > 300-399 > > > for useful things and 100-199 for end-user things like office. Even > > > numbered centuries are 'reserved for future expansion'...) > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ wpkg-users mailing list wpkg-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wpkg-users
