Weak dependencies do not allow qualifiers #624
Assignees
Labels
Comments
ffesti
added a commit
to ffesti/rpm
that referenced
this issue
Jan 29, 2020
We are using weak dependency for ordering now. So it make sense to also qualify weak dependencies with the time they are needed/wanted in the transaction to make use of this information in ordering. Especially (posttrans) could be useful to remove weak deps from dependency loops during ordering when they are only needed after the installation. Resolves: rpm-software-management#624
ffesti
added a commit
to ffesti/rpm
that referenced
this issue
Jan 29, 2020
We are using weak dependency for ordering now. So it make sense to also qualify weak dependencies with the time they are needed/wanted in the transaction to make use of this information in ordering. Especially (posttrans) could be useful to remove weak deps from dependency loops during ordering when they are only needed after the installation. Resolves: rpm-software-management#624
|
This should've been closed by commit ddbf30c but GH doesn't recognize the Resolves: tag used in the message. |
|
Erm, though this was already merged but the PR is still open afterall, reopening for the time being. |
pmatilai
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jan 17, 2022
We are using weak dependency for ordering now. So it make sense to also qualify weak dependencies with the time they are needed/wanted in the transaction to make use of this information in ordering. Especially (posttrans) could be useful to remove weak deps from dependency loops during ordering when they are only needed after the installation. Resolves: #624
|
Reopening, this never actually worked or it has regressed:
|
pmatilai
added a commit
to pmatilai/rpm
that referenced
this issue
Mar 12, 2024
Commit ddbf30c neglected to update the preamble table types for the weak dependency tags, so it never worked. Add a test to ensure it works and stays that way. Fixes: rpm-software-management#624
pmatilai
added a commit
to pmatilai/rpm
that referenced
this issue
Mar 12, 2024
Commit ddbf30c neglected to update the preamble table types for the weak dependency tags, so it never worked. Add a test to ensure it works and stays that way. Fixes: rpm-software-management#624
pmatilai
added a commit
to pmatilai/rpm
that referenced
this issue
Mar 12, 2024
Commit ddbf30c neglected to update the preamble table types for the weak dependency tags, so it never worked. Add a test to ensure it works and stays that way. Test depends on 078ccae Fixes: rpm-software-management#624
pmatilai
added a commit
to pmatilai/rpm
that referenced
this issue
Mar 12, 2024
Commit ddbf30c neglected to update the preamble table types for the weak dependency tags, so it never worked. Add a test to ensure it works and stays that way. Test depends on 078ccae Fixes: rpm-software-management#624
pmatilai
added a commit
to pmatilai/rpm
that referenced
this issue
Mar 12, 2024
Commit ddbf30c neglected to update the preamble table types for the weak dependency tags, so it never worked. Fixes: rpm-software-management#624
pmatilai
added a commit
to pmatilai/rpm
that referenced
this issue
Mar 12, 2024
Commit ddbf30c neglected to update the preamble table types for the weak dependency tags, so it never worked. Add a test to ensure it works and stays that way. Test depends on 078ccae Fixes: rpm-software-management#624
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Right now only requires allows using qualifiers like pre, post, preun, postun, pretrans posttrans. This was correct in the past. But now we are using those for ordering, too. So it make sense now to also qualify weak dependencies with the time they are needed/wanted in the transaction to make use of this information in ordering.
Shuffling the case statements in handlePreambleTag may already do the trick, although someone should probably check the ordering code.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: