Before anybody asks: I actually do think that ultimately rpm should be
able to support reliably rolling back transactions. It's just that the
current repackage+rollback combo fails to deliver it, as there's no way to
undo script actions.
So... I'm considering axing the rollback and related
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 10:45 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Before anybody asks: I actually do think that ultimately rpm should be
able to support reliably rolling back transactions. It's just that the
current repackage+rollback combo fails to deliver it, as there's no way to
undo script
On Feb 19, 2008 3:45 AM, Panu Matilainen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before anybody asks: I actually do think that ultimately rpm should be
able to support reliably rolling back transactions. It's just that the
current repackage+rollback combo fails to deliver it, as there's no way to
undo
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, James Olin Oden wrote:
On Feb 19, 2008 3:45 AM, Panu Matilainen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before anybody asks: I actually do think that ultimately rpm should be
able to support reliably rolling back transactions. It's just that the
current repackage+rollback combo fails to
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 11:15 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
Do you like the perform an lvm-snapshot in pre-trans and allow rolling
back in post-trans as reliable rollback method?
The problem is that while FS LVM snapshot+rollback might be reliable
from the POV of rpm, it's untenable from the POV of
