[Freeipa-devel] Why is RPM posttrans quiet?

[Rob Crittenden]

Jan Pazdziora wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:11:37AM +0100, Petr Spacek wrote:
>> Hello list,
>>
>> I just found that freeipa.spec silences all messages from %posttrans
>> scripts, which makes me a bit nervous:
>>
>> %posttrans server
>> # This must be run in posttrans so that updates from previous
>> # execution that may no longer be shipped are not applied.
>> /usr/sbin/ipa-ldap-updater --upgrade --quiet >/dev/null || :
>> /usr/sbin/ipa-upgradeconfig --quiet >/dev/null || :
>>
>> # Restart IPA processes. This must be also run in postrans so that plugins
>> # and software is in consistent state
>> python -c "import sys; from ipaserver.install import installutils;
>> sys.exit(0 if installutils.is_ipa_configured() else 1);" > /dev/null
>> 2>&1
>> # NOTE: systemd specific section
>> if [  $? -eq 0 ]; then
>>      /bin/systemctl try-restart ipa.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || :
>> fi
>> # END
>>
>>
>> I can't find such requirement in
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
>>
>> Is there any particular reason for that?
>>
>> Does anybody have objections against removing redirection to
>> /dev/null? (With appropriate handling for non-existent binaries, of
>> course.)
>
> It reminds me of
>
> 	https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=606239
> 	https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615763
>
> The problem is, you will not see that output when using yum in
> RHEL 6 anyway. And maybe in the past it even killed something?
>
> The examples in
>
> 	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets
>
> all have the redirect but no explanation why.
>
> Maybe poking relevant Fedora people could yield some definitive
> answer?
>

I don't know about any packaging requirements but we got a fair bit of 
push back whenever we include output in rpm in bugs like 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538859

That isn't exactly definitive though, as Jan points out asking the 
Fedora packaging folks is probably the way to go.

rob