On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 06:50:24PM +0000, Adam Spiers wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand where Jeff was going with his suggestion of > actions being based on the result of %post success however. I had > always envisaged the semantics of %post being "try to finish up > cleanly by running %post, but if it fails, we consider it an > unfortunate partial success rather than a failure which then gets > rolled back". If %post succeeding is to be considered a strict > requirement for success, then rpm should be more diligent about > cleaning up from its failure. > Depends on POV. rpm was designed as an installer library, not as a general purpose software manager. Within that narrow "installer library" design, failures, particularly scriptlet failures, are not supposed to happen, that's what package QA is supposed to identify and fix long before the installer sees the package. It's really not that hard to check package quality by installing in a chroot. It's simply not possible to recover from all possible errors, nor even a significant subset of all possible errors. 73 de Jeff > > _______________________________________________ > Rpm-list mailing li > Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list -- Jeff Johnson ARS N3NPQ jbj@xxxxxxxxxx (jbj@xxxxxxx) Chapel Hill, NC _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
