rpm packaging guideline question: differentiating between live/chroot installs?
katzj at redhat.com
Fri Jun 23 14:19:06 UTC 2006
On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 19:02 -0700, Jane Dogalt wrote:
> --- Jeremy Katz <katzj at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-06-22 at 15:21 -0700, Jane Dogalt wrote:
> > > (How) Should one go about detecting in pre/post(/un) scripts in an rpm,
> > whether
> > > or not the rpm (de)installation is occurring on a live running system, or
> > > within a chrooted (e.g. anaconda installer) based environment.
> > This isn't something you should ever really need or want to do.
> I forgot to add in first reply-
> Does this mean that pre/post(un) scripts should be policywise-forbidden from
> doing anything which directly or indirectly tries to touch /proc, which in a
> chrooted environment, will not be mounted? I have this hunch that I've run
> into rpms which do try to touch proc, though off the top of my head I can't
> point any fingers.
For values of touching roughly equating to "change things in" ;-)
Reading things out of /proc should be fairly benign
More information about the devel