On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Adam Spiers wrote: <snip> > 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? > I would in the since that some things done in %pre are not done to validate that a package should be installed. For example creating users that files that are part of your rpm's payload are owned by. In Solaris they had the concept of a "validate" script (forget the exact name) that served this purpose. I actually would like to see such functionality in RPM, so that such a scriptlet could be run and if it returns 0, then the package is installed, but if it returns a positive return code the package would not be installed, but it also would not flag an error. Course I have bigger concerns than that, and Jeff would have strong ground to argue that such functionality could be part of something external to rpm making such policy decisions. Cheers...james > > _______________________________________________ > Rpm-list mailing list > Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list > _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
