[systemd-devel] RFC: creating a set of systemd RPM macros across distributions ?

[Frederic Crozat]

Le mardi 05 juillet 2011 à 18:25 +0200, Kay Sievers a écrit :
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:09, Frederic Crozat <fcrozat at suse.com> wrote:
> > Le lundi 04 juillet 2011 à 19:28 +0200, Kay Sievers a écrit :
> >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 14:57, Frederic Crozat <fcrozat at suse.com> wrote:
> >> > Le lundi 04 juillet 2011 à 14:53 +0200, Kay Sievers a écrit :
> >> >> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 14:10, Frederic Crozat <fcrozat at suse.com> 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 <fcrozat at suse.com>
SUSE