Cannot rely on /dev being present in %post scripts?

[David Woodhouse]

According to bug #517013, %post scripts should not assume that /dev is
available -- so we can't do anything that requires the existence of 
/dev/null, /dev/urandom, etc.

Is this a known and expected packaging rule, or is it a bug in the way
that the user is attempting to install the packages?

-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse(a)intel.com                              Intel Corporation

[yersinia]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:18 PM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2(a)infradead.org&gt;wrote:

>  According to bug #517013, %post scripts should not assume that /dev
> is
>  available -- so we can't do anything that requires the existence of
>  /dev/null, /dev/urandom, etc.
>
>  Is this a known and expected packaging rule, or is it a bug in the way
>  that the user is attempting to install the packages?
>  
IMHO, if i want to install something in a chroot i have to create /dev, and
/proc entry at least or put a bind mount to these. So, i think that it is
the user have do some error in installaling the package.

Regards


>  --
>  David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
>  David.Woodhouse(a)intel.com                              Intel Corporation
>
>  --
>  fedora-devel-list mailing list
>  fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>

[Till Maas]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 03:18:16PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>  According to bug #517013, %post scripts should not assume that /dev
> is
>  available -- so we can't do anything that requires the existence of 
>  /dev/null, /dev/urandom, etc.
>  
>  Is this a known and expected packaging rule, or is it a bug in the way
>  that the user is attempting to install the packages? 
I mentioned it already in the bug report: There are some scriptlet
recommendations that use /dev/null:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets

Regards
Till

[Mike A. Harris]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David Woodhouse wrote:
>  According to bug #517013, %post scripts should not assume that /dev
> is
>  available -- so we can't do anything that requires the existence of 
>  /dev/null, /dev/urandom, etc.
>  
>  Is this a known and expected packaging rule, or is it a bug in the way
>  that the user is attempting to install the packages? 
It's been pretty common since forever for various scriptlets to redirect
output of stderr/stdout to /dev/null, so I think it'd be a bit of an
ugly mess if there was a mandatory packaging rule you couldn't use at
least /dev/null

I hope post scripts wont have to test for /dev/null and create a device
node for it if it isn't present, before redirecting to it.  ;o)



- --
Mike A. Harris
http://mharris.ca  |  https://twitter.com/mikeaharris

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFKhSxZ4RNf2rTIeUARAjPWAJ962g89WlN4q+rn92c+IR2rzft/9gCgoFHy
> dOV7pNYrcGQPgIWIuvfenkU=
> =nV29
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Andy Green]

On 08/14/2009 10:20 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:

>  It's been pretty common since forever for various scriptlets to
> redirect
>  output of stderr/stdout to /dev/null, so I think it'd be a bit of an
>  ugly mess if there was a mandatory packaging rule you couldn't use at
>  least /dev/null
>
>  I hope post scripts wont have to test for /dev/null and create a device
>  node for it if it isn't present, before redirecting to it.  ;o) 
You could use mknod to create a workable /tmp/dev/null if it was the 
idea, satisfying any dependency locally.

Some magic /sys dir that always satisfies anything eg, > 
/sys/device_node/1_3 could solve it as well.

-Andy