%preun clarification

[Orion Poplawski]

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 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 at emc.com
> <mailto: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 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?

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 at cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301              http://www.cora.nwra.com