Error output from rpm pre/post scripts (was Re: Florian La Roche please stop mass filing bugs)
Hans de Goede
j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl
Thu Jul 5 06:52:25 UTC 2007
Florian La Roche wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 10:28:27PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Can someone please stop Florian La Roche from mass filing bugs, for
>> packages which follow:
>> To the letter and teach him to instead discuss stuff like this on the list,
> Hello Hans,
> looking into spec files many rpms have already corrected their
> scripts to not show this error. Most by checking if the app is installed
> before calling it,
Actually, the checking first is the old recipe from the scriplets page, so
those packages haven't been fixed, they have not been updated to match the
latest scriptlets page.
> So it is a known issue where most maintainers have already fixed
> their packaging.
No its not a known issue, otherwise people like Tibbs, who has reviewed
somewhere near 300 packages and I who maintain 130+ packages would have known
> The error output is a real bug, so just closing this is not very
I agree that its a bug. However as said the scriptlet recipe was changed from
checking to not checking, I'm sure this was discussed and there were reasons.
So lets first discuss this with the people who made this change.
> I understand you are not interested in pursuing this, then
> you should keep such bugs open until the discussion about this is
This is something that should get discussed first and then start opening bugs,
if that is whats agreed upon as result of the discussion. You did it in the
wrong order. Also this is so minor that I personally don't think it warrents
filing bugs, people installing graphical applications without having gtk on
there system? The chances of that happening are very small.
I say lets update the recipe page and ask maintainer to fix the scripts as they
roll out updates for other (better) reasons. That what I've been doing with
checking if gtk-update-icon-cahce exists before running -> not checking (as
that is what the recipe was changed to).
> It is good you explicitely allow others to change things in
> your packages.
Yes, thus as said once this is discussed, if you think this is worth the time
filing a bug over, please just go in and fix it instead.
More information about the Fedora-maintainers