James Olin Oden (joden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > On Tue, 27 Jan 2004, Adam Spiers wrote: > > 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. That's why I included "partially, at least" in parentheses ... > 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. Yeah. Ideally all policy decisions could be layered over rpm, but then rpm needs the hooks to support layering. _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
