Jeff Johnson (jbj@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > 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. That's an interesting POV. In that case I'd say rpm has outgrown its original design - there are many rpms out in the wild with little or no QA. I can see how Red Hat could take the "not our problem" stance on that though. > 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. Agreed - it's not possible to achieve a 100% recovery; however there is the potential for a best effort recovery, and that grey area is more or less what we're discussing here. Finally, I'd always thought of %pre as (partially, at least) an rpm's chance to declare itself unsuitable for installing via a deliberate non-zero exit code. Would you say that's a misplaced belief? _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
