On Dec 1, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Jeffrey Johnson <n3...@me.com> wrote:
>
> I'm inclined atm to prefer the above actual behavior to "fudging" an
> extra +1 for "legacy compatible" behavior; I'm sure we disagree here.
>
> Short answer: patch in an extra +1 (there will be two code paths in need
> of patching, check for symmetry as above) if you wish "legacy compatible"
> behavior.
>
This is likely all that is needed (untested):
cvs diff psm.c
Index: psm.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /v/rpm/cvs/rpm/lib/psm.c,v
retrieving revision 2.399.2.5
diff -p -u -w -r2.399.2.5 psm.c
--- psm.c 19 Apr 2012 17:26:06 -0000 2.399.2.5
+++ psm.c 1 Dec 2012 16:02:48 -0000
@@ -2755,7 +2755,7 @@ assert(psm->te != NULL);
psm->scriptTag = RPMTAG_POSTIN;
psm->progTag = RPMTAG_POSTINPROG;
psm->sense = RPMSENSE_TRIGGERIN;
- psm->countCorrection = 0;
+ psm->countCorrection = 1;
if (!(rpmtsFlags(ts) & RPMTRANS_FLAG_NOPOST)) {
rc = (rpmRC) rpmpsmNext(psm, PSM_SCRIPT);
_______________________________________________
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
