On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 02:36:05PM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:28:51AM +0100, Michal Sekletar wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Harald Hoyer <harald@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The downside is: > > > - if systemd is installed afterwards, the %post scripts do not trigger > > > - packages, which need systemd-tmpfiles or systemd-sysusers could not be converted > > > > IIRC, some time ago there was a proposal to split systemd-tmpfiles, > > systemd-sysusers and other utilities to separate sub-package called > > systemd-tools. We should probably revisit this idea. Pfff, I need to work on my reading comprehension skills :( > Yes, I intend to push the split to rawhide real soon now: > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1501 That's not the right ticket or the right proposal. The (formerly rejected) proposal to split systemd-tools was https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SystemdPackageSplit Between that (let's call it a) and Harald's OrderWithRequires approach (call it b) the real difference is when systemd is not installed as part of the initial rpm transaction, and later on it is added. In case (a) presets and sysusers and similar work, in case (b) they do not. (b) would translate to "if you want all systemd installation facilities to work, make sure to install systemd as part of the first transaction". The question is how often people would miss that requirement and how much of a problem it would be if they did. The (a) proposal would have be adjusted a bit. I think that with rpm filetriggers and other recent changes, the list of binaries to include in "systemd-tools" could become slightly smaller. Zbyszek -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
