Le mardi 05 juillet 2011 à 18:25 +0200, Kay Sievers a écrit : > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:09, Frederic Crozat <[email protected]> wrote: > > Le lundi 04 juillet 2011 à 19:28 +0200, Kay Sievers a écrit : > >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 14:57, Frederic Crozat <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Le lundi 04 juillet 2011 à 14:53 +0200, Kay Sievers a écrit : > >> >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 14:10, Frederic Crozat <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > (this macro could refer to different package, if people don't agree on > >> >> > systemd-units as packagename) > >> >> > >> >> I don't agree on the split-off in general. :) > >> >> > >> >> I don't really see how a subpackage gives us any advantage, and we > >> >> should not recommend its use, I think. > >> > > >> > In that case, I suggest we keep the macro name in the proposal (because > >> > we want other packages to requires "some" systemd package in their > >> > specfile, but the content of the macro can change in distributions. > >> > >> What's the point of having "some" sub-package at all? I guess, stuff > >> should just depend on systemd.rpm instead of making it all needlessly > >> complicated. Or should I package udev-rules.rpm next? :) > > > > Please re-read what I wrote : > > Nice hint. :) > > > the point is to have a common macro which would allow packagers to > > ensure they don't forget anything. The name of the package pulled by > > this macro is not relevant. > > Yeah, and again, it's just 'Requires: systemd', and I think no need to > play distro-package indirection/abstraction games here.
No, it is : Requires(post) Requires(preun) Requires(postun) and from experience, people tends to forgot one or another. Using a macro helps for readability and consistency. But if you really don't want this macro, I guess it will be SUSE only.. -- Frederic Crozat <[email protected]> SUSE _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
