On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 05:01:37AM -0700, Steve G wrote: > >> $ rpm -e kernel-2.6.5-1.358 kernel-2.6.8-1.541 > >> error: can't create transaction lock > > >Doesn't this assume that ALL transaction lock problems are permissions > >related? > No. There are a variety of reasons why this might fail. There's more than one > value for errno returned. Indeed there might be another write rpm operation happening! > > >Does rpm have the capability to inherently know that its a permission > >problem? > errno is set, its just a matter of using it in the error message. This is fair enough > >Can you assume that every rpm installation in use requires root? > This is actually a good point. rpm should check the uid to see if its root. > If not print a warning that there may be permission problems and re-run as > root to avoid this warning. This patch has been on my todo list for a while. I'm not sure that's ideal behaviour - it is possible to use things such as --dbpath and --root (ignoring not being able to move the transaction lock for the moment). I wouldn't expect a failed (EPERM) rm command to suggest rerunning as root, likewise for rpm. Also theoretically we could have a "package_installer_r" with selinux to enable certain rpm install operations. As always bugzilla or rpm-list the best places for RFEs or this sort of discussion. Paul
