On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 james.oden@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > 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 Sounds good to me, and clearer than my idea. > > 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. I'm not convinced of the merit of more than one %post section anyway. The chroot command is available if you want it, and you can easily have several scripts accessible in any of several ways. If you use one script, you have complete control. -- Please, reply only to the list.
