rpm packaging guideline question: differentiating between live/chroot installs?

[Jane Dogalt]

--- Jeremy Katz <katzj at redhat.com> wrote:
 
> > 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

Well, I suppose I was sort of advocating that reading from proc also be
disallowed because

a) in a vanilla chrooted environment, /proc is not visible, and even if
mounted, may be from a different kernel than the target system.

and then the part that is defensible only as theoretical advocacy-

b) for installs to a livecd or other system disk which one wants to be
physically portable (i.e. booting from day to day on a variety of hardware,
e.g. system drive on an ipod), you don't want to be laying down assumptions at
install time.  

Now of course (b) would require signifigant change, in that all hardware
configuration would have to be done each boot (bypassed if boot detects a known
and already configured hardware profile).  But it would be cool :)

-jdog


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com