Re: Installation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 6/15/07, tony.chamberlain@xxxxxxxxx <tony.chamberlain@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks I do have opposite (rpm -e instead of rpm -Uvh) matching
but reverse in my %postun (not %preun but there are no files installed
to uninstall other than a temp directory which the RPMs are stored
during installation).  Also they are in reverse, which I believe is correct.
For instance:

%post
rpm -Uvh x.rpm
rpm -Uvh y.rpm
rpm -Uvh z.rpm

...
...

%postun
rpm -e z
rpm -e y
rpm -e x



Technically, erasures should be the reverse of installs, yes.

I would use %preun rather than %postun for similar
symmetry reasons. Ultimately it won't matter much
for "package bundels".

You're likely better off if you just invoke rpm once
with all packages in arghlist, rather than trying to maintain some order
in the "package bundle" with single package invocations. RPM will
re-order using internal dependency information, and will handle
possible A <-> B interdependencies.

73 de Jeff

_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list

[Index of Archives]     [RPM Ecosystem]     [Linux Kernel]     [Red Hat Install]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Watch]     [Red Hat Development]     [Red Hat]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [IETF Discussion]

  Powered by Linux