Bug 476275

Summary:	Uninstalling packages breaks Requires(pre) dependencies
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael>
Component:	rpm	Assignee:	Panu Matilainen <pmatilai>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	10	CC:	ffesti, ivazqueznet, jnovy, pmatilai
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2008-12-12 20:55:51 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Michael Schwendt 2008-12-12 20:40:34 UTC

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2008-December/msg00426.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2008-December/msg00429.html

  $ rpm -qR glibc-devel|grep ^glib
  glibc = 2.9-2
  glibc-headers = 2.9-2

So, glibc-devel requires glibc-headers.

  $ rpm -q --provides glibc-headers
  glibc-headers(i386)  
  glibc-headers = 2.9-2
  glibc-headers(x86-32) = 2.9-2

  $ rpm -q --whatprovides glibc-headers
  glibc-headers-2.9-2.i386

  $ sudo rpm -e glibc-headers

Uh? That should not have been possible, because now:

  $ rpm -V glibc-devel
  Unsatisfied dependencies for glibc-devel-2.9-2.i386:
          glibc-headers = 2.9-2 is needed by glibc-devel-2.9-2.i386

As Seth's message adds, it's "Requires(pre)" for this dependency
on glibc-headers. That's true according to the glibc.spec file.

Is the Requires(pre) supposed to be so weak that it can be broken with a
simple rpm -e?

Comment 1 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams 2008-12-12 20:52:02 UTC

Requires(pre) means that it's needed for running the script in %pre. If it needs to stick around for the lifetime of the requiring package then it should be a Requires as well.

Comment 2 Michael Schwendt 2008-12-12 20:55:51 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 223642 ***