Issue
I've got several versions of some package. The last of it has an error in %pre section that terminates the install script:
mypak-0.0.1-1.el6.noarch.rpm
mypak-0.0.1-2.el6.noarch.rpm
mypak-0.0.1-3.el6.noarch.rpm <-- bad package
All of my packages have debug output in pre, post, preun and postun sections.
I install the first package:
rpm -Uhv mypak-0.0.1-1.el6.noarch.rpm
Output (param is the parameter passed to script sections) is:
Preparing... ########################################### [100%]
pre: 0.0.1-1.el6 ; param = 1
1:mypak ########################################### [100%]
post: 0.0.1-1.el6 ; param = 1
Then I try to update my package and (accidentally) launch rpm command with all the packages at once:
rpm -Uhv mypak-0.0.1-*
warning: package mypak = 0.0.1-1.el6 was already added, replacing with mypak > 0.0.1-2.el6
warning: package mypak = 0.0.1-2.el6 was already added, replacing with mypak > 0.0.1-3.el6
Preparing... ########################################### [100%]
pre: 0.0.1-3.el6 ; param = 2
!!!version 3 is bad!!!
error: %pre(mypak-0.0.1-3.el6.noarch) scriptlet failed, exit status 1
error: install: %pre scriptlet failed (2), skipping mypak-0.0.1-3.el6
preun: 0.0.1-1.el6 ; param = 0
postun: 0.0.1-1.el6 ; param = 0
As you can see, my package was removed in the end. Moreover, the package is removed even if other packages depend on it. I don't even get any warnings about corrupted dependencies!
If I install my packages one after another, I don't have that problem. In this case installation of the third package fails and that's all. The previous version of my package is still in place.
I think this is really a strange behaviour. Is it a bug in rpm or am I missing something?
I use rpm 4.8.0 on Centos 6.5.
Solution
I wrote about this behaviour to the RPM mailing list and Lubos Kardos answered that this is a bug and now it is fixed.
Mailing list thread: http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-list/2015-April/001740.html
Commit: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/c7fa7b2fd7205b73c833831ab9f8c311f40b2ff1
Answered By - hank Answer Checked By - Dawn Plyler (WPSolving Volunteer)