On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Denis Washington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 19:35 +0200, devzero2000 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. > > > > I didn't want to express an opinion, I just want to know what > RPMTAG_FILESTATES implements so I can fill it in properly. I cannot see > where I attacked him with this question, but I apologize when I did. This was your word in this thread "Despite thinking that opinions can hardly be measured in terms of "correctness", there are enough people that keep flawed opinions for their entire life without reflecting on after some time. Maybe my comparatively little experience just gives my the flexibility of mind that you might be missing after more than ten years. But I was actually not planning to start a whose-right flame war." (aside) It is time for LSB RPM SPEC to move to RPM4 packaging format > > > Regards, > Denis > > ______________________________________________________________________ > RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org > LSB Communication List rpm-lsb@rpm5.org >
