There is no dependency on /usr/sbin/alternatives (part of chkconfig), which is required in package scripts. I suggest to add a file dependency (not a package dependency) like PreReq: /usr/sbin/alternatives (see also bugs #136137 and #136137 for related discussions on alternatives in emacs) Thanks.
Which subpackage is causing you problems? I see: % rpm -q --requires emacs-common|grep alternative /usr/sbin/alternatives
Yes, you are right. I checked the specfile, and the real issue is that Requires(pre, post) does not behave as it should. Instead PreReq does the job. Here is a log of a today's installation on FC3 of emacs and some other rpms. As you see the ordering of emacs-common vs chkconfig is not correct. emacs-common ################################################## /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.41070: line 4: alternatives: command not found error: %post(emacs-common-21.3-17.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 pkgconfig ################################################## glib2-devel ################################################## libstdc++-devel ################################################## gcc-c++ ################################################## libttf2 ################################################## freetype ################################################## chkconfig ################################################## xorg-x11-libs ##################################################
Out of curiousity, what are you using to upgrade with? emacs-21.3-22 should have the fix.
Thanks. Wrt to the depsolver used for the output above: I'm not 100% sure, but I think the above log was from apt-get. If not it was yum or smart. Do you think that matters? AFAIU all pass on the transaction itself to rpmlib these days, and rpmlib computes the ordering.
I don't think apt-get plays a role in that. The "Requires(pre,post)" syntax is known to be buggy in rpm. Splitting that to two, ie. "Requires(pre)" and "Requires(post)" or using PreReq which is almost the same thing should work. http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-April/msg00674.html (See the two Bugzilla pointers at end of that message)