[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: RPM's that fail in %post...



On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 03:36:47PM -0600, Eli Carter wrote:
> Jeff Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > FWIW, there are 2 big lies in rpm:
> > 	1) reproducible builds.
> > 	2) all-or-nothing transaction set installs.
> > 
> > #1 is true iff one knows how to set up a build environment.
> 
> Which would be true of any package manager, as I understand it, right?
> 
> > #2 is true iff system is maintained (e.g. enough disk space) and
> > packaging is perfect, i.e. no %post failures. %pre failures
> > are even weirder, and then there's %triggers.
> 
> But this sounds like it's rpm specific...

ENOSPC is rpm specific? Hardly.

Failure of %post is an rpm problem? Buggy/untested scripts have been written
and run since the Bourne shell was first coded.

Failure to react perfectly in the face of ENOSPC, %post scriptlet failures,
hardware problems, etc on an installed for all possible conditions?

Yeah, I guess that's a rpm specific deficiency, to be solved eventually.

> So let me ask an unfair question: are there other package managers that 
> get #2 right?

Dunno, I use rpm. If there was a better package manager, I'd use that, but
that's just my opinion.

C'mon, rpm does not take out the trash, boil the coffee, scramble your eggs,
or a zillion other things.

Deal with it.

73 de Jeff

-- 
Jeff Johnson	ARS N3NPQ
jbj@redhat.com (jbj@jbj.org)
Chapel Hill, NC





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index] []