Re: [PATCH] setup: fix abnormal exit test for postinstall scripts

[Max Bowsher <maxb1 at ukf dot net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Igor Peshansky wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2006, Dave Korn wrote:
> 
>> On 09 March 2006 23:14, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>
>>>>> 	* script.cc (Script::run): Fix inverted test for abnormal exit.
>>>>> 	Do not rename to ".done" unless completed successfully.
>>>> And ping (attached as "setup-script-exit-code-fix.patch").
>>> Do we necessarily want to try to re-run failed scripts the next time
>>> setup installs some packages?
> 
> Why not?  It would make recovery from a hosed install because of in-use
> DLLs easy enough -- just re-run setup and select "Keep", which will only
> rerun the postinstall scripts.
> 
>>> Perhaps renaming to ".failed" would be better that not renaming.
>>>
>>> Max.
>>   Perhaps setup should check when you first start it up whether there
>> are any postinstall scripts left lying around from last time and offer
>> to run them for you then and there?  Failed postinstalls should be run
>> to completion *before* next updating the package!
> 
> Why?  I'm not so certain.  So your preremove will fail -- who cares, it
> would also fail if "cygwin" is upgraded and is uninstalled before the
> preremove script is run.  Next time you upgrade, it'll be like the initial
> install all over again, and the *new* postinstall will run.  If you didn't
> touch the package, however, the postinstall that failed before will be
> re-run.  If it failed because of something in the environment when setup
> was run (e.g., a stale DLL in memory), it will now succeed and will be
> renamed to .done.  If it fails again, we'll know something was wrong, and
> will recommend looking at the output in setup.log.full.


I'm concerned about introducing weird subtle edge cases. For example:

Upgrade package in which old version has preremove, new version does
not. preremove fails. Next time setup runs, stale preremove zaps parts
of the upgraded package.

Granted, it's a fairly tenuous situation, but at least the current
behaviour is very predictable: scripts are only re-run manually.


Max.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)

iD8DBQFEFuQVfFNSmcDyxYARAlgKAKC66G+IST6shyrayRdINqP9+MHyRwCeM1bW
9/T/dk+FCynLASmQ0p5HsEM=
=0T78
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----