On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:22:21AM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 2:20 AM Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > >>>>> "ZJ" == Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > ZJ> I think it's pretty clear: all the standard invocations of > > ZJ> scriptlets that have by replaced by transfiletriggers will be > > ZJ> removed, along with the whole %post/%postun sections if its the only > > ZJ> thing in them. > > > > I do think it would be better to list exactly what is expected to be > > changed (and which packages actually need which changes). > > Done. > > * ldconfig scriptlets will be removed (or by maintainer request will > be replaced by %ldconfig_scriptlets macro which exists on Fedora and > EPEL) > * gtk-update-icon-cache, glib-compile-schemas, > gdk-pixbuf-query-loaders, gtk-query-immodules-3.0, gio-querymodules > and install-info will be removed (or by maintainer request will be > guarded with %if's) > > > > ZJ> I think that the way this should be handled is that if maintainers > > ZJ> of a package want to use a single branch for F30+ and > > ZJ> EPEL/RHEL/whatever, it is on them to arrange the spec file with the > > ZJ> appropriate conditionals. > > > > Well, that's what makes it tough. You can remove the scriptlets, or you > > can replace them with the various sets of macros which do nothing on > > Fedora and do something on EPEL (to the extent that is even possible). > > The macros needed are often context-dependent. Certainly just removing > > things is simplest but will cause the most upset. > > > > It's not trivial to know if a maintainer insists on the single spec > > approach, so it can be rather difficult to do this in an automated > > fashion. Of course it would be easy if everyone just fixed the packages > > they maintain so that there's no need for automated fixup. I'd hope > > that some of that might happen if the lists of packages which need > > changes are provided. I did some of that a couple of releases ago and I > > could try to do it again if someone could lengthen the day by a few > > hours. > > I've updated change which is explicitly mentions that I'm going to > send Pull Requests to packages, so it should not make anyone unhappy. Are you sure this is a viable approach? $ rpm -qa --scripts|grep ldconfig|wc -l 1130 (and I have only 5k packages installed, 20% of the whole distro?). Counting one PR for every two ldconfigs, you'd have to open maybe 500-2000 PRs. Not only is it a waste of _your_ time, but of the other 500-2000 people to answer this. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
