> > an error to whatever called it, to get the thing to stop properly. At
> > anyrate its easy to see that there was no
> > intention of even caring about return codes from %pre scripts (or %post
> > scripts for that matter), which I
> > thinks is the wrong thing to do, or at least there should be an option
to
> > request it to do this, but in most
> > cases if the %pre goes bad, I don't want the install to continue. In
our
> > case when %pre goes bad
> > usually shortly there after anaconda goes completley off the rails and
we
> > get a python exception.
>
> Clearly, change that behaviour now is going to upset folks.
>
> What happens if you remove the ks file in your %pre script?
I will look into this. Devious, thinking (-;
>
> I think this could be made an acceptable way to stop a ks install at
> that point. Jeremy may accept a patch to that effect.
Would it not be better to have some %pre or %post directive that
communicated that this particular
script expects anaconda to halt on error; maybe something like:
%pre --dieonerror
Or some other text. I do understand the need to maintain some backwards
compatibility (sort of),
but I am curious as to why one might want this behavior (at least in %pre)?
In %post I could see that one may
want to continue on and run other %post scripts, but then again maybe you
don't.
cheers...james
