Marcus Hüwe wrote:
>>>> But this maybe leads to some problems too.
>>>> One possible problem could be that the user removes the pear-package via
>>>> the
>>>> pear commandline tool but the package still exists in the rpm database..?!
>>> I think this is a generic problem, it would be interesting to see
>>> how/whether is it solved in cpan or gems. Darix, Anicka, are you there? ;-)
>> i have the similar problem with my rubygem-* rpms. i thought about
>> hacking the cmdline tool to check if the module was installed via rpm
>> and error out in this case. so far i didnt find time to implement it.
>>
> How do you want to find out if the module was installed via rpm or via the
> commandline tool?
A) extend pear's database to hold that information
OR
B) run exec("rpm -q " . escapeshellarg($rpmname), $out, $ret) in the
commandline tool
A) would IMO be more difficult to implement, B) would cost some time to
query the rpm database (probably feasible), plus it would require a
consistent, machine deducible naming of the rpm packages (desirable
anyway ;)).
Either way, we would need to find all possible code paths wher a
packages are manipulated, that is not only direct install/update/erasure
of the package, but also install/update via dependencies. So the whole
think might turn out to be way too difficult, esp. when this would
probably never be accepted upstream.
But the %post %postun scriplets look like a goot idea to me.
Michal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
