With my changes I can have dependent packages with absolutely lowest
(e.g. prio 1) without even adding them directly to the profile. They still
installed _before_ the package which depends on it (which is correct from my
point of view).
So.... I guess I should drop this thread and pick up my thoughts in the
bugzilla commentary instead, if necessary.
On 11/6/07, Twan Fox <twanfox@gmai...> wrote:
> That makes some logical sense, but at the same time, I have to ask this.
> Is that the way it should be? Logically, when one says 'depends on', they
> don't usually mean 'depends on, if the priority is higher'. Or, stated
> another way, it seems silly to depend on a secondary attribute to define
> proper package order in regards to dependancies when it can very easily be
> manipulated (by the unknowing or the foolish) into the reverse order.
> Perhaps, if priority is still to be the defining factor of install order,
> wpkg can log a warning that "dependancy of <package x> set to install after
> <package y> based on priority" or perhaps a configured setting that will
> automatically kick down packages dependant on others to a lower priority by
> default (dependancy priority - 1) regardless of what the package's priority
> is. This would eliminate the potential to misconfigure things.
> On 11/5/07, Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@wpkg...> wrote:
> > Dr. Frank Lee schrieb:
> > > <installing MS bugfixes>
> > >
> > >> I understand that higher priority packages are going to install
> > first. I
> > >> know that, if one package/profile depends on another, that the other
> > >> package/profile will get installed as well, but does that imply the
> > >> dependancy will be installed first regardless of priority? In some
> > cases, I
> > >> could see that as being a requirement. Software B requires Software A
> > to be
> > >> installed first to register properly, but due to them being set at
> > the same
> > >> priority, B installs first, then A, missing the required
> > configuration
> > >> steps.
> > >
> > >> How does WPKG handle dependancies and how does it deal with order of
> > >> installation? If this is already answered in a FAQ somewhere, I
> > apologize
> > >> for not having searched there first. I haven't had the luxury of time
> > to
> > >> disect the code to read my answer directly.
> > >
> > > (I'm replying 'cos I think I contributed the start of the 'dependancy'
> > > code...)
> > >
> > > The 'dependancy' just adds the packages to the list, which is then
> > > installed in order of priority. If 'foo' depends on 'bar' being
> > present
> > > for 'foo' to install properly, 'bar' ought to have a higher priority
> > than
> > > 'foo'.
> > >
> > > In the example above, B should be set at a higher priority than A for
> > > success. (I usually have 900-999 as the priority for OS patches,
> > 700-799
> > > for antivirus etc, 500-599 for 'mission critical' applications,
> > 300-399
> > > for useful things and 100-199 for end-user things like office. Even
> > > numbered centuries are 'reserved for future expansion'...)
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________
wpkg-users mailing list