On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 09:55:43AM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > <quote who="Silcock, Stephen"> > > > That looks like acceptable behaviour to me; the script was looking for a > > file that wasn't there and it told you exactly that. When you put the > > file back (or a dummy one at least) it worked OK. What exactly about the > > process do you not think is robust? > > The file was in the target state (deleted). The script (and thus the package > management system, because it will put this package in a broken state) > should not b0rk because it is unable to delete a file that is "already not > there".
It was in the prerm script, thus the package wasn't removed yet. prerm == pre-removal, so nothing had yet been done. If the prerm script isn't run, then purge/whatever may do completely unexpected things, so that's a completely legitimate thing to do. The script needs to run in prerm, before removal (oddly enough). You're applying for NM, you should know this. Read up on policy. -- Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -Evii- (opnotice/#linux/18@) I hereby vote DanielS as my choice for the new channel manager ;) -Lion-O- [Wall/#linux] /me kills evii -RelDrgn- i vote we shoot evii ;) -Evii- (opnotice/#linux/18@) Hey would be a great way to get rid of the lusers.. and regulars.. and ops.. ;) (editor's note: Evii was drunk at the time) -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
