On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 7:35 PM, devzero2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Denis Washington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 13:01 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote: >> > On Jun 21, 2008, at 12:48 PM, Denis Washington wrote: >> > >> > > On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 12:27 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote: >> > >> On Jun 21, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Denis Washington wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >>> What if the transaction fails? register_package() would have >> > >>> returned >> > >>> without error although the registration was unsuccessful then, >> > >>> and all >> > >>> files would already be installed. >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> What if you've added a header, but your daemon exits before >> > >> successfully computing and adding RPMTAG_SIZE withthe >> > >> _close_package() method? >> > > >> > > Got me. Although, if a dummy value (e.g. 0) was added in >> > > _register_package(), an unsuccessful _close_package() wouldn't be a >> > > harm >> > > at all. The header would be complete anyway. >> > > >> > >> > Hint: RPMTAG_SIZE simply does not matter. Nor do Vendor: Packager: >> > Description: Summary: and all the other goopiness carried in >> > markup (because its easy to add) and rpmdb Headers. >> > >> > OTOH, RPMTAG_FILESTATES is gonna matter a _LOT_. So >> > will leaving stale locks, and forgetting to attach stderr when >> > your widdle daemon forks. >> >> Could you explain what should go in RPM_FILESTATES? It's not listed in >> the LSB specification. >> > > Sorry, but who care on LSB RPM specification aka RPM v3 (other for some > useful docu) ? RPM 4.4.2 could not produce it, do you know ? > > Also , do you know that the LSB RPM spec was bourne only because "someone" > suggest to write some referral on the LSB on "MAXIMUN RPM" ? > > Also again do you know that in "REDHAT RPM GUIDE" "someone" suggest the > author to describe in appendices the RPMV3 package format only > for the better docu ? > > And guess who it is this "someone" ? > > R : Jeff Johnson > > So think more carefully before expressing silly opinions on Jeff Johnson, > which authority in the filed is beyond discussion. > > >
