--- /dev/null
+More detailed explanation:
+
+http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/pipermail/pld-devel-en/2012-December/023356.html
+
+On Dec 1, 2012, at 10:55 AM, Jeffrey Johnson <n3npq@me.com> wrote:
+
+>
+> I'm inclined atm to prefer the above actual behavior to "fudging" an
+> extra +1 for "legacy compatible" behavior; I'm sure we disagree here.
+>
+> Short answer: patch in an extra +1 (there will be two code paths in need
+> of patching, check for symmetry as above) if you wish "legacy compatible" behavior.
+>
+
+This is likely all that is needed (untested):
+
+cvs diff rpm/lib/psm.c
+Index: rpm/lib/psm.c
+===================================================================
+RCS file: /v/rpm/cvs/rpm/lib/psm.c,v
+retrieving revision 2.399.2.5
+diff -p -u -w -r2.399.2.5 rpm/lib/psm.c
+--- rpm/lib/psm.c 19 Apr 2012 17:26:06 -0000 2.399.2.5
++++ rpm/lib/psm.c 1 Dec 2012 16:02:48 -0000
+@@ -2755,7 +2755,7 @@ assert(psm->te != NULL);
+ psm->scriptTag = RPMTAG_POSTIN;
+ psm->progTag = RPMTAG_POSTINPROG;
+ psm->sense = RPMSENSE_TRIGGERIN;
+- psm->countCorrection = 0;
++ psm->countCorrection = 1;
+
+ if (!(rpmtsFlags(ts) & RPMTRANS_FLAG_NOPOST)) {
+ rc = (rpmRC) rpmpsmNext(psm, PSM_SCRIPT);
+
+_______________________________________________
+pld-devel-en mailing list
+pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
+http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Patch56: rpm-macros.patch
Patch57: %{name}-db5.2.patch
Patch58: %{name}-preserve-iterator.patch
+Patch59: %{name}-triggerin-compat.patch
# Patches imported from Mandriva
%patch56 -p1
%patch57 -p1
%patch58 -p1
+%patch59 -p1
%patch1000 -p1
%patch1001 -p1