On 2003-08-19(Tue) 16:19:29 +0800, Abel Cheung wrote: > > I just added '[ $1 != 0 ] && exit 0' after my %preun section to cover the > > non remove situation. > > You might want to use [ $1 = 0 ] || exit 0 instead. In the rare case > that no any command follows (that can be a mistake), > '[ $1 != 0 ] && exit 0' will result in a non-zero exit status, since > $1 != 0 , and the "exit 0" part won't be executed. Forget it, I'm not awake yet. Abel > > Abel > > > > > > > Thank for your advice. > > > > Michael > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul Nasrat [mailto:pauln@truemesh.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 7:07 AM > > To: rpm-list@redhat.com > > Subject: Re: Running section %preun after upgrading package > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 06:52:40AM +0200, Petereit, Michael wrote: > > > > > yes, it's an upgrade. But I can see the results of section %preun at the > > end > > > of the setup process. > > > > > So, I'm a little bit confused why this happens after the installation > > > process finished... > > > > http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/ch-rpm-upgrade.html > > > > <quote> > > If there was one RPM command that could win over friends, it would be > > RPM's upgrade command. After all, anyone who has ever tried to install a > > newer version of any software knows what a traumatic experience it can > > be. With RPM, though, this process is reduced to a single command: rpm > > -U. The rpm -U command (--upgrade is equivalent) performs two distinct > > operations: > > > > 1. Installs the desired package. > > 2. Erases all older versions of the package, if any exist. > > </quote> > > > > > But is this behavior to uninstall the old one before installing the new > > one > > > the default bahavior ? > > > > Essentially (although in the order described above). RPM scriplets can > > workout whether it is in an upgrade or complete removal by checking the > > value of $1 passed to it. I think the issue here is possibly that the > > preun script for your package isn't checking this (the argument > > represents the number of mypackage packages left on the system after the > > complete transaction, so for a removal it is 0, for an upgrade greater > > than 0 for postun/preun). > > > > > I assumed rpm is capable of making upgrades without deleting the old one. > > > > No this is not the case. An upgrade implies taking an old version and > > replacing it with a new version. It is possible to have multiple > > packages installed - the kernel is the prime example of this as you > > certainly don't want to remove a running kernel/modules whilst > > upgrading, but for this to work the packages must be designed to > > > > Paul > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > -- > Abel Cheung > Linux counter #256983 | http://counter.li.org > GPG Key: (0xC67186FF) | http://deaddog.org/gpg.asc > Key fingerprint: 671C C7AE EFB5 110C D6D1 41EE 4152 E1F1 C671 86FF -- Abel Cheung Linux counter #256983 | http://counter.li.org GPG Key: (0xC67186FF) | http://deaddog.org/gpg.asc Key fingerprint: 671C C7AE EFB5 110C D6D1 41EE 4152 E1F1 C671 86FF
Attachment:
pgp00004.pgp
Description: PGP signature