On 05/11/11 16:25, Olivier BONHOMME wrote: > Le 05/11/2011 17:14, Ned Slider a écrit : >> Quite possibly, I don't know. >> >> In which case, if such a bug does exist and is affecting you, I would >> place the script within %postun of each package that needs it rather >> than calling the script as a file that might have already been removed. > > Hello Ned, > > Sorry but I am a little bit confused. Now, it's the case : the script is > in the %postun block for each RPM which needs it. But maybe, there is a > misunderstanding. Are you talking about the script content ? > Yes, the script content. >> This is better than simply testing the script exists before running it >> as if it doesn't then it doesn't get run and presumably that is not the >> desired outcome. > > In my case, it's not a big deal because, if the binary is not here, that > means the main app package is not here anymore and in that case it > doesn't make sense to execute the script. > Well that depends on what the script does I guess. In your case it may well be fine.