On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 12:09:49PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: > > > That looks like acceptable behaviour to me; the script was looking for a > > > file that wasn't there and it told you exactly that. When you put the > > > file back (or a dummy one at least) it worked OK. What exactly about the > > > process do you not think is robust? > > > > The file was in the target state (deleted). The script (and thus the package > > management system, because it will put this package in a broken state) > > should not b0rk because it is unable to delete a file that is "already not > > there". > > It was in the prerm script, thus the package wasn't removed yet. prerm > == pre-removal, so nothing had yet been done. If the prerm script isn't > run, then purge/whatever may do completely unexpected things, so that's > a completely legitimate thing to do. The script needs to run in prerm, > before removal (oddly enough). You're applying for NM, you should know > this. Read up on policy.
Just so I make sure I'm following, this makes that the prerm script is broken, and not apt, right? (prerm should have ignored the exit code from rm.) -- #ozone/algorithm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - trust.in.love.to.save -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
