Re: Issue with rpm -U

[Derald Metzger <dmetz imagelinks com>]

Stephen,

My strong suspicion is that rpm does things in this manner to 
support upgrades while the product is in use. I've been upgrading
rpms for a couple of years while users are occassionally actively
using the software and have yet to encounter a failure. Tho I'm 
still a little skeptical I'm really impressed by this.

Confirmation anyone?

Derald
dmetz@remotesensing.org

> From: Stephen Balukoff <stephen@cylant.com>
>...
> Howdy!
>
> After scouring the web for an rpm developers' list, this is the closest
> I've found;  If I'm directing this question to the wrong place, please
> let me know.
>
> After writing a couple of bugfix release packages for some software the
> company I work for writes, I'm putting together instructions for our
> customers to upgrade their packages.  I wanted to have them upgrade by
> executing an 'rpm -U <package file name>' command, having hoped this
> would do approximately the following (with some dependency-checking
> built in):
>
> rpm -e <old package version> ; rpm -i <new package version>
>
> The packages I wrote use pre- and post-(un)install scripts.  I had
> assumed, therefore, the approximate order in which the (un)installation
> tasks to be performed would be:
>
> Execute pre-uninstall script for old package
> Remove old package files
> Execute post-uninstall script for old package
> Execute pre-install script for new package
> Install new package files
> Execute post-install script for new package
>
> After doing some investigating, however, I was able to discover that
> 'rpm -U <package file name>' does its tasks in approximately the
> following order (using both rpm 3.0.5 and rpm 4.0):
>
> Execute pre-install script for new package
> Install new package files
> Execute post-install script for new package
> Execute pre-uninstall script for old package
> Execute post-uninstall script for old package
>
> I'm not sure when/if obsolete/removed files from the old package are
> removed in this process.
>
> My question is this:
> Is there a good reason (save for backward compatibility) that 'rpm -U'
> performs the (un)installation tasks in this order?  Am I the only one
> who thinks the current implementation does things rather bass-ackwards? 
> (I realize I can circumvent the issue by asking our customers to first
> do an 'rpm -e' on the package before doing an 'rpm -i', but IMO this is
> a poor workaround and still leaves the 'experienced' admin open to
> foobaring his system by doing an 'rpm -U'.)
>
> Help appreciated,
> Stephen
>
>
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Stephen Balukoff
> Systems Administrator                   Cylant Technology
> Tel. 541 322 5656 x101                  Fax. 541 322 5655
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm-list mailing list
> Rpm-list@redhat.com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
>