On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 20:57 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > Matthias Clasen (mclasen@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > >>> Yes, but fixing every possible application which could ever be put in a > >>> scriplet to never, ever, ever fail, even in the cases when failure is > >>> acceptable (and shouldn't kill the transaction) is a little beyond the > >>> mandate of the FPC. ;) > >> > >> If scriptlet are not allowed to ever, ever, fail, then just make rpm > >> ignore the exit code of scriptlets. > > > > scriptlets should be allowed to fail when the failure is catastrophic > > enough. What that is, I'm not sure. > > Agreed on principle but... The rpm transaction is not unlike a derailed > train - a few red lights from failing scriptlets ain't going to stop it > from wrecking everything that happens to be on its way until it simply > runs out of speed. So the problem is: what exactly is a scriptlet > intentionally failing going to do? It wont stop the transaction anyway... > > For the vast majority of cases it'd be far far more useful just to > ignore the status but log the failures to permanent storage (and notify > user at end of transaction). Leaving duplicates behind on upgrades like it > now does is hardly useful behavior to anybody. > +1 It confuses people and makes them come and ask me questions. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
