Le mardi 05 juillet 2011 à 23:39 +0200, Lennart Poettering a écrit : > On Tue, 05.07.11 18:37, Frederic Crozat ([email protected]) wrote: > > > > > 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.. > > Oh, we all want standardized systemd macros for RPM, there's not doubt > on that. The question is just how exactly they should look like. And > that means two things: first we have to agree how the macro should be > called (and that implies figuring out policy of enabling and stuff, > since we probably shouldn't suggest in the name of a macro that it does > specific policy decisions if later on we decide to do policy completely > differently -- for example with the preset stuff I just posted the RFC > about), and secondly we have to agree how the default macro definitions > should look like.
Agreed :) > Kay just wanted to point out that the Requires(post) might not be the > right choice to place in the default macross. > > The simple thing is that if we add this to systemd (or RPM, but I prefer > systemd) then this will be something gazillions of packages will rely > on, or will even copy, so we really should get it right. And that > includes that we need to question every single line of it, which in this > case raised some eyebrows on the usefulness of Requires(post) and > friends if Requires is already in the header anyway. > > The simple fact is that we need a dependency on systemd anyway in the > RPMS to get the ownership for the units directory right. Now, if we have > "Requires: systemd" in the header, why do we also need "Requires(post): > systemd"? What does this buy us? Requires(post/preun/postun) on the package containing systemctl is needed as soon as systemctl is called in %post/preun/postun. A simple Requires is not enough, because you might end up installing systemd and the package requiring it in the same rpm transaction, but in the incorrect order. -- Frederic Crozat <[email protected]> SUSE _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
