[Mageia-dev] RFC: Add versioned require in rpm on rpm-helper

Mon Apr 16 15:35:46 CEST 2012

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 14:23, Colin Guthrie <mageia at colin.guthr.ie> wrote:
+> 'Twas brillig, and Thierry Vignaud at 16/04/12 13:04 did gyre and gimble:
+>> On 16 April 2012 13:15, Colin Guthrie <mageia at colin.guthr.ie> wrote:
+>>> <snip>
+>>>
+>>> So just to make sure I'm following this right:
+>>>  1. Versioned require will fix urpmi-based upgrades.
+>>>
+>>>  2. Installer (fresh-install) will be fine because basesystem-minimal
+>>> will pull in rpm which will pull in rpm-helper.  WE can be confident
+>>> this will happen early.
+>>
+>> No you cannot on upgrade.
+>> Package ordering will depends on versioned requires.
+>
+> I don't understand... This is a fresh install, where did upgrade come
+> into it?
+>
+> Just to clarify, the *fresh install* case is fine, it's the *upgrade*
+> case (which I specifically outlined separately below to avoid confusion
+> - although that clearly failed) that has the problem. Correct?
+>
+>>>  3. Installer (upgrade) will still be broken as it does not treat the
+>>> rpm package inside the chroot as any kind of priority update that is
+>>> installed early in the upgrade process.
+>>
+>> installer upgrade will be OK if systemd unit packages require a recent
+>> enough rpm-helper
+>
+> I wasn't really looking for solutions, just trying to understand the
+> problem clearly. Proposed solutions often cloud the thinking about the
+> problem itself.
+>
+>
+> So putting "Requires(pre): systemd-units" in all packages providing a
+> systemd unit seems wrong (it doesn't require systemd-units at all, so
+> this is a fake requires).
+>
+> Putting "Requires(pre): rpm-helper >= $ver" also seems somewhat overkill
+> and hard to maintain (e.g. what if some other new thing goes into
+> rpm-helper? We have to rebuild all packages that use any of the macros
+> inside it to get the appropriate versioned require which seems awkward
+> and hard to maintain[1]).
+
+If a package requires a new script, it means there is a call to this
+script, so I would expect that it was built after this new script was
+added.
+