Hi to all

I have not found recent documentation, so this post.

It is* possible to express boolean dependencies in RPM?



For example i would like to say that a package* depends on if another package is not installaed.
Or if could express OR dependency, eventually based also on version number : e.g.
as in Requires: (pkg <=1.0.3) | (pkg>=1.9.3)*



Thanks in advance

_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list

I think you sould use yum server. through yum server installation every dependency will taken itself. you don't need to search* any dependency.


On 2/4/08, devzero2000 <pinto.elia@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi to all

I have not found recent documentation, so this post.

It is* possible to express boolean dependencies in RPM?


For example i would like to say that a package* depends on if another package is not installaed.
Or if could express OR dependency, eventually based also on version number : e.g.
as in Requires: (pkg <=1.0.3) | (pkg>=1.9.3)*



Thanks in advance

_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@redhat.com

https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list


_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list

devzero2000 skrev, on 04-02-2008 11:40:


I have not found recent documentation, so this post.


This cost me about 3 minutes of imaginative Googling:
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/drafts/rpm-guide-en/

I have both this and Maximum on my hard disk and indexed for searching
on single words with swish-e.



It is possible to express boolean dependencies in RPM?


Yes. grep -ir for examples in /usr/lib/rpm.

For example i would like to say that a package depends on if another
package is not installaed.
Or if could express OR dependency, eventually based also on version
number : e.g.
as in Requires: (pkg <=1.0.3) | (pkg>=1.9.3)


The above hasn't anything to do with Boolean switches but is given with
the Requires: and/or BuildRequires: definitions.


Best,

--Tonni

--
Tony Earnshaw
Email: tonni at hetnet dot nl

_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list

On Feb 5, 2008 8:00 AM, Tony Earnshaw <tonni@hetnet.nl> wrote:

> This cost me about 3 minutes of imaginative Googling:

http://docs.fedoraproject.org/drafts/rpm-guide-en/



I have bought the book a few years ago: i talk about RPM 4.1. The online
version lacks some chapter also.



MAXIMUN RPM is all about RPM* 3.0.x - used in redhat 6.2 if i remember correctly and yes, also on AIX 5.3

Today we have at least 4.4.3.x.y.z(www.rpm.org), Mandriva also 4.4.6. Some evolution and new features have occurred from 4.1


>The above hasn't anything to do with Boolean switches but is given with
the Requires: and/or BuildRequires: definitions.

Probably I spoke badly, but I wanted to ask the question as raised by this comparison chart

*http://kitenet.net/~joey/pkg-comp/#foot11


> Yes. grep -ir for examples in /usr/lib/rpm.

I haven't found any, but probably i haven't looked well.



I have
On Feb 5, 2008 8:00 AM, Tony Earnshaw <tonni@hetnet.nl> wrote:

devzero2000 skrev, on 04-02-2008 11:40:

> I have not found recent documentation, so this post.

This cost me about 3 minutes of imaginative Googling:
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/drafts/rpm-guide-en/


I have both this and Maximum on my hard disk and indexed for searching
on single words with swish-e.

> It is *possible to express boolean dependencies in RPM?

Yes. grep -ir for examples in /usr/lib/rpm.


> For example i would like to say that a package *depends on if another
> package is not installaed.
> Or if could express OR dependency, eventually based also on version
> number : e.g.

> as in Requires: (pkg <=1.0.3) | (pkg>=1.9.3)

The above hasn't anything to do with Boolean switches but is given with
the Requires: and/or BuildRequires: definitions.

Best,

--Tonni


--
Tony Earnshaw
Email: tonni at hetnet dot nl

_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@redhat.com

https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list


_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list

rpm has never had support for alternation (as in A | B) through Requires:All dependencies are implictly && (except for triggers which are naturally ||).
What can serve instead of saying** *Requires: A | Bis having multiple provides and virtual dependencies, but
that quickly gets complicated.
There's no real reason why alternation could not be done. I looked
at related issues last May while implementing a compound &&so that one could naturally say** *Requires: foo.i386where the N.A form implies that i386 must match in the same package.
I implemented negated dependencies like** *Requires: !fooat the same time (Requires: !foo is formally analogous to Conflicts: foo,
there is a similar symmetry between Provides: and ObsoletesLikely dependency ranges are more important to implement than having the ability to
specify alternate comparisons. I would have implemented last May but therewas no obvious consensus on what the syntax should be when I asked.
73 de Jeff
_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list

On Tuesday, 05 February 2008, at 08:00:42 (+0100),
Tony Earnshaw wrote:

>> It is possible to express boolean dependencies in RPM?
>
> Yes. grep -ir for examples in /usr/lib/rpm.

Please share some. I would love to see them.

>> Requires: (pkg <=1.0.3) | (pkg>=1.9.3)
>
> The above hasn't anything to do with Boolean switches but is given with the
> Requires: and/or BuildRequires: definitions.

Please illustrate.

Michael

--
Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <mej@kainx.org>
Linux Server/Cluster Admin, LBL.gov Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Overflow on /dev/null. Please empty the bit bucket." -- fortune

_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list