"Supposedly no functional changes here.". So it seems this wasn't done
intentionally. And yes using %pre/%preun to fail an install/uninstall is a
Lubos
From: "Jerrold Heyman" <Jerrold.Heyman@xxxxxxx>
To: "General discussion about the RPM package manager" <rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:16:09 PM
Subject: RE: %preun clarificationI 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
_______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
