On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, Adam Spiers wrote: > 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. > Right that is exactly what I am talking about. Presently, it supports some hooks, and does not support others. Its time to start hacking (-; 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
