Review queue/FESCo after the merge

[seth vidal]

On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 20:57 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> 
> > Matthias Clasen (mclasen at redhat.com) said:
> >>> Yes, but fixing every possible application which could ever be put in a
> >>> scriplet to never, ever, ever fail, even in the cases when failure is
> >>> acceptable (and shouldn't kill the transaction) is a little beyond the
> >>> mandate of the FPC. ;)
> >>
> >> If scriptlet are not allowed to ever, ever, fail, then just make rpm
> >> ignore the exit code of scriptlets.
> >
> > scriptlets should be allowed to fail when the failure is catastrophic
> > enough. What that is, I'm not sure.
> 
> Agreed on principle but... The rpm transaction is not unlike a derailed 
> train - a few red lights from failing scriptlets ain't going to stop it 
> from wrecking everything that happens to be on its way until it simply 
> runs out of speed. So the problem is: what exactly is a scriptlet 
> intentionally failing going to do? It wont stop the transaction anyway...
> 
> For the vast majority of cases it'd be far far more useful just to 
> ignore the status but log the failures to permanent storage (and notify 
> user at end of transaction). Leaving duplicates behind on upgrades like it 
> now does is hardly useful behavior to anybody.
> 

+1

It confuses people and makes them come and ask me questions.

-sv