On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 10:27:37 -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 16:39, Matthias Saou wrote:
>
>
>>Now... I'm posting here before bugzilla'ing this since I'd like to
know
>>what the general opinion is regarding packages requiring some of their own
>>sub-packages like this. I really think it should be avoided since there are
>>some side-effects like this one that can arise.
>
>
> Agreed. But in case a dependency "loop" like this between some packages
> is not avoidable (in general, not in this particular case) and the order
> in which they are installed inside one transaction matters, one of them
> should use "PreReq" and the other "Requires" in order to break
the loop
> in predictable fashion (== PreReq "wins"; the package containing it will
> be installed last). That's what I've heard the difference between
> PreReq and Requires is, anyway.
>
>
Eh? jbj has confirmed on multiple occasions that there is NO DIFFERENCE
between PreReq and Requires.
Sure about that? BuildPreReq and BuildRequires are equal. But quoting
RPM documentation:
\subsection dependencies_prereqs Prereqs
Prereqs are different from requires only in that a PreReq is guaranteed
to be installed before the package that contains the PreReq. PreReq's
are used only to order packages, otherwise PreReq's are exactly the same
as a Requires: dependency.
--
Fedora Core release 2 (Tettnang) - Linux 2.6.7-1.494.2.2
loadavg: 1.00 1.21 1.47