Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 à 11:21 -0700, Dan Trainor a écrit : > If you don't mind me asking, what is "shortcut" about prompting for > information during an install? You talk about efficiency and effective > use of time. I believe that efficiency and effective use of time > involves the most stream-lined, automated setup and installation (and > I'll agree that my situation is not "ideal"), but it would not involve > me going back and re-installing or inserting some other piece of > software after the RPM transaction has taken place. I think you're deeply confused about what rpm can an can not do for you. Today you've got little experience with rpm so you say "I won't ever use this, I can afford to break it". This is a very dangerous position to take, as your knowledge grows you'll understand what these tools can do for you and will want to use them like everyone else. Do not assume you know what you're giving up - if you did you wouldn't be asking questions on this list, but creating your non-standard package by yourself. The great strength of a standard package format like rpm is that the smarts are in the tools, not in the packages themselves. All the efforts you will save by ignoring best packaging practises will never match the efforts you'll have to expend to replace the tools your decisions will make impossible to use. Moreover, what you want to achieve is trivially possible by writing an installation script that calls rpm on your package, and then call the configuration tool interactively. This is basically what anaconda/firstboot is. You will have the single installation command you want _and_ your package will be sane and reuseable in other contexts later. Start with a clean package. And when I say clean, I mean it - do follow all the best practises advocated on rpm sites and lists, even the ones you don't really understand today. There is little fat in rpm. Most of the rules are here for very pragmatic reasons. Then put all your custom calls in the wrapper script. Since it's custom you'll need to change/debug it often because you won't have any template to start from - better not to have to jump through a package rebuild every time. In less than one year I predict you'll have rewritten your script to use yum instead of a direct rpm call. In two your team will tell you the wrapper script is not really necessary because they can call rpm/yum themselves thank you very much, and anyway they prefer to to the configuration in some other point of time you've not predicted. In three you'll be explaining to newcomers on this list why what you're asking today is a verrry bad idea. And it won't even cost you more at first - in fact scriplets are an atrocious place to put "creative" commands, especially since most of the constraints are here because of the "generic, non-interactive part" and this does not apply to your case. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
