Re: %preun clarification

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


On 02/18/2016 03:16 PM, Heyman, Jerrold wrote:
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

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


Earlier today (2016/02/18), Jerry Heyman Jerrold.Heyman@xxxxxxx
<mailto: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, 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 -> that permanently
altered the behavior or is it just a bug in

I'm not authoritative, but it's my experience that rpm has been moving to ignoring the return codes of all of the scripts in order to keep the overall transaction process deterministic.

Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager                     303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division                    FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane                  orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Boulder, CO 80301    
Rpm-list mailing 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