[Rpm-maint] semantics of %posttrans?

[Bill Nottingham]

Panu Matilainen (pmatilai at redhat.com) said: 
>>> 2) If so, does it imply the need for a (ugh) %postuntrans?
>>
>> Makes no sense, unless in the context of a "rollback" (an untrans, by
>> some definition...)
>
> Well, a package might want to know whether it's being removed or
> installed/upgraded in a transaction. So the %postuntrans does kinda
> make sense when you think of it as "the transaction where this package got
> removed." The terminology is confusing though, "pre/posttrans" makes you
> immediately think of "before and after a transaction starts and stops" and
> pre/postuntrans sounds, indeed, like some reverse transaction.

So, my context is in the fixing of the 'excessive ldconfig' issue -
instead of the hammer posted earlier, you could just fix the packaging,
and replace all the %post/%postun with %posttrans. But if you want it
to run on a just-removal transaction, you either need %posttrans to
run for both, or %postuntrans.

Bill