Bug 118780 - Requires(pre,postun) is ignored for installed packages
Summary: Requires(pre,postun) is ignored for installed packages
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 155700
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: rpm   
(Show other bugs)
Version: rawhide
Hardware: i386 Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Paul Nasrat
QA Contact: Mike McLean
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2004-03-20 06:17 UTC by Michael Schwendt
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:10 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2005-04-23 00:10:53 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Michael Schwendt 2004-03-20 06:17:13 UTC
Installed is a package which "Requires(pre,postun): foo". 

$ rpm -qR test | grep foo
foo

However:

$ rpm -q --whatrequires foo
no package requires foo

And I can "rpm -e foo" and the %postun scriptlet in the installed
package fails. Like in Enrico's bug 118773 report, splitting the
requirements to

Requires(pre): foo
Requires(post): foo

fixes this, and "foo" shows up in upon "--whatrequires foo" query, too.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rpm-4.3-0.21 (and rpm-4.2.1-0.30)

How reproducible:
Always

Additional info:
I'm prepared to hear this is a feature, not a bug. ;)

Comment 1 Jeff Johnson 2004-03-20 15:39:00 UTC
Ok, it's a "feature" not a bug.

You have known and adequate workaround. I suggest you use that.

Comment 2 Leonard den Ottolander 2004-04-13 14:08:15 UTC
*** Bug 118773 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 3 Mike A. Harris 2005-04-22 13:13:10 UTC
This is not a feature.  It is a bug.  RPM documentation clearly states
that the syntax:  Requires(foo,bar) is valid.  Fix rpm.


Comment 4 Warren Togami 2005-04-22 22:19:06 UTC
*boink*


Comment 5 Leonard den Ottolander 2005-04-22 22:30:03 UTC
??

Comment 6 Paul Nasrat 2005-04-23 00:09:14 UTC
See bug #155700 which I'll close as a dupe of this for details of issue.  I've
tested a fix - basically a test that is incorrect in (pre,postun) cases and I'll
get a testing package out next week.  

Comment 7 Paul Nasrat 2005-04-23 00:10:53 UTC
Sorry easier closing this way around - as other bug is on blockers.  

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 155700 ***


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.