According to bug #517013, %post scripts should not assume that /dev is available -- so we can't do anything that requires the existence of /dev/null, /dev/urandom, etc.
Is this a known and expected packaging rule, or is it a bug in the way that the user is attempting to install the packages?
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:18 PM, David Woodhouse dwmw2@infradead.orgwrote:
According to bug #517013, %post scripts should not assume that /dev is available -- so we can't do anything that requires the existence of /dev/null, /dev/urandom, etc.
Is this a known and expected packaging rule, or is it a bug in the way that the user is attempting to install the packages?
IMHO, if i want to install something in a chroot i have to create /dev, and /proc entry at least or put a bind mount to these. So, i think that it is the user have do some error in installaling the package.
Regards
-- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel Corporation
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 03:18:16PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
According to bug #517013, %post scripts should not assume that /dev is available -- so we can't do anything that requires the existence of /dev/null, /dev/urandom, etc.
Is this a known and expected packaging rule, or is it a bug in the way that the user is attempting to install the packages?
I mentioned it already in the bug report: There are some scriptlet recommendations that use /dev/null:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets
Regards Till
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Woodhouse wrote:
According to bug #517013, %post scripts should not assume that /dev is available -- so we can't do anything that requires the existence of /dev/null, /dev/urandom, etc.
Is this a known and expected packaging rule, or is it a bug in the way that the user is attempting to install the packages?
It's been pretty common since forever for various scriptlets to redirect output of stderr/stdout to /dev/null, so I think it'd be a bit of an ugly mess if there was a mandatory packaging rule you couldn't use at least /dev/null
I hope post scripts wont have to test for /dev/null and create a device node for it if it isn't present, before redirecting to it. ;o)
- -- Mike A. Harris http://mharris.ca | https://twitter.com/mikeaharris
On 08/14/2009 10:20 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
It's been pretty common since forever for various scriptlets to redirect output of stderr/stdout to /dev/null, so I think it'd be a bit of an ugly mess if there was a mandatory packaging rule you couldn't use at least /dev/null
I hope post scripts wont have to test for /dev/null and create a device node for it if it isn't present, before redirecting to it. ;o)
You could use mknod to create a workable /tmp/dev/null if it was the idea, satisfying any dependency locally.
Some magic /sys dir that always satisfies anything eg, > /sys/device_node/1_3 could solve it as well.
-Andy
-
Andy Green -
David Woodhouse -
Mike A. Harris -
Till Maas -
yersinia