Re: Autorollback patch question...

[James Olin Oden <joden malachi lee k12 nc us>]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Adam Spiers wrote:

<snip> 
> Finally, I'd always thought of %pre as (partially, at least) an rpm's
> chance to declare itself unsuitable for installing via a deliberate
> non-zero exit code.  Would you say that's a misplaced belief?
> 
I would in the since that some things done in %pre are not done to
validate that a package should be installed.  For example creating users
that files that are part of your rpm's payload are owned by.  In Solaris
they had the concept of a "validate" script (forget the exact name)
that served this purpose.  I actually would like to see such functionality
in RPM, so that such a scriptlet could be run and if it returns 0, then 
the package is installed, but if it returns a positive return code the 
package would not be installed, but it also would not flag an error.
Course I have bigger concerns than that, and Jeff would have strong ground
to argue that such functionality could be part of something external to 
rpm making such policy decisions.

Cheers...james

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