|
On 08/21/2012 05:08 PM, Lennart
Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 21.08.12 16:52, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johannbg@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On 08/21/2012 02:52 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >However, the person who is sending these bugs reports is
> >(a) in a much better position to change the packages because they
> >understand the problem and the solution, and (b) ought to take on this
> >work because that's part of whatever feature/cleanup/etc they are
> >proposing, instead of pushing part of that work off to everyone else.
>
> That's how I *initially* though the feature process worked as in the
> feature owner always has to do all the work.
>
> Then again I suspect not many maintainers will do this change since
> if I'm not mistaken it a) means they have to have separated spec
> files for <F18 and b) will break everybody's upgrade path since if
> I'm not mistaken preset *resets* units enable/disablement *again* (
> it happens when the legacy sysv to systemd migration takes place
> )...
No, presets don't reset existing enablement/disablement status.
Presets only matter with the initial installation of a package and when
a package is converted from sysv to systemd, but do not matter if a
package already uses systemd unit files, or just converts non-macro
scriptlets to macro scriptlets.
But it's still necessary to keep two separate spec files ( <F18
& F18> ) + given the time of the packaging guideline changes
and the branching happening the *day after* I tempted to put on my
QA hat and argue this should only apply to F19 not F18 and from the
looks of it the Red Hat's systemd *Team* is behind this which
constitutes of what 5 - 10 people now so there should be sufficient
manpower for those that requested this to actually make those
changes themselves before F19 get's released...
JBG
|
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
