RE: %preun clarification

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

 



I previously wrote the below, and wanted to add that I have since tested on a newer version of Mageia, version 4.

It makes use of rpm version 4.11.1 and has the same behavior as 4.11.0.1

 

Does this mean that is the new behavior? Or is Mageia 4 broken as Mageia 3 is?

 

jerry

 

Earlier today (2016/02/18), Jerry Heyman Jerrold.Heyman@xxxxxxx wrote:

 

A quick scan of the archives leaves me confused about %preun sciptlets returning error (non-zero). 

There is a thread that says using %pre to fail an install/uninstall is a bad idea.

 

I have been requested fail the removal of an RPM if the binary that was installed is currently an active process.

 

I’ve written a %preun scriptlet that returns non-zero if the binary is actively running.

On CentOS 6.7 (rpm version 4.8.0) I get the expected behavior.  When the scriptlet returns non-zero, the removal is terminated and no change to the rpmdb.

On Mageia 3 (rpm version 4.11.0.1), the non-zero return code appears to be ignored and the rpm is removed (files and rpmdb updated).

 

Was there a change somewhere between 4.8 -> 4.11.0.1 that permanently altered the behavior or is it just a bug in 4.11.0.1?

 

 

Jerry Heyman                           |

Principal Software Engineer            |    Software is the difference

EMC Data Domain                        |    between hardware and reality

Jerrold.Heyman@xxxxxxx / 919.597.7812  |

 

_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.rpm.org/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