lkardos at redhat.com
Tue Mar 1 13:35:52 UTC 2016
This behaviour was changed in this commit  and the commit message says
"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
really bad idea.
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerrold Heyman" <Jerrold.Heyman at emc.com>
> To: "General discussion about the RPM package manager"
> <rpm-list at lists.rpm.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:16:09 PM
> Subject: RE: %preun clarification
> 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 188.8.131.52
> Does this mean that is the new behavior? Or is Mageia 4 broken as Mageia 3
> Earlier today (2016/02/18), Jerry Heyman Jerrold.Heyman at emc.com 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
> 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
> On Mageia 3 (rpm version 184.108.40.206), 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 -> 220.127.116.11 that permanently altered
> the behavior or is it just a bug in 18.104.22.168?
> Jerry Heyman |
> Principal Software Engineer | Software is the difference
> EMC Data Domain | between hardware and reality
> Jerrold.Heyman at emc.com / 919.597.7812 |
> Rpm-list mailing list
> Rpm-list at lists.rpm.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rpm-list