Scott Schmit <i.grok@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 01:22:27AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> On Wed, 22.08.12 19:17, Tom Lane (tgl@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: >>> What I would want to see in F16/F17 is macros that exactly duplicate the >>> previously-standard snippets they are supposed to replace. Nobody is >>> suggesting that the preset stuff ought to go into the released branches; >>> only that we don't want to have to maintain different specfile versions >>> for the different branches. And if these things are macros, we should >>> not have to. >> The thing is that previously we had to different snippets, one for >> enabling a service after installation, one for leaving it disabled. With >> the macros there is only one which checks the preset policy whether >> something should be enabled. Hence we can't really map the old logic to >> the new macros, I fear. > Well, you could have two macros -- pre-F18 they do what they do now, > F18+, they do the same thing and defer to the policy. Yeah. The plain macros could be the non-auto-enable snippets, which is what the majority of services will be. Then a different macro name for services that think they should auto-enable. TBH I think that is probably a better design than what is there now, because the ground truth for the default enable decision *ought* to be in the packages, and this is as good a way to express that as any. Setting things up so that the packages have no say in this is just going to be a maintenance headache long-term: whoever is "in control of the policy" is going to be deluged with this that and the other change request. It would be a whole lot more maintainable if the "policy" only had to express deltas off the per-package defaults, and not contain every single decision. regards, tom lane -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
