Re: Understanding Fedora's use of systemd presets and packaging requirements

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 2019-04-22 at 18:42 +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> 
> > > AIUI, the design is that any package that *ships a preset* should run
> > > systemctl preset on it in its scriptlets (there should be guidelines
> > > for this somewhere but I can't find them right now).
> 
> There's no explicitly stated rule, afaik, but scriptlets [1] document
> %systemd_requires and scriptlets are part of the guidelines.
> 
> [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
> 
> > > However, there's a
> > > loophole here in that if any package that ships a preset gets ordered
> > > before systemd itself during install, its attempt to run 'systemctl
> > > preset' will obviously fail. This is why we run 'preset-all' in the
> > > systemd package scriptlets: to apply the presets for any packages which
> > > were already installed. It's not intended that all other packages can
> > > *rely* on the call in systemd's scripts.
> > 
> > BTW if you're wondering "why not just make sure everything that ships a
> > preset gets installed after systemd"...sadly there are some awkward
> > cases that make that not practical, basically 'systemd depends on
> > something that installs a preset' or 'systemd depends on something that
> > depends on something that installs a preset'.
> 
> I think that the attempt to install all packages that provide services
> after systemd is misguided / outdated. As you say, doing this
> comprehensively isn't possible because of circular deps. Furthermore,
> since you restored the call to preset-all, there is no point. The
> effect is the same in either order.
> 
> I want to open an FPC ticket to change the guidelines to not require
> any dependency on systemd for packages that simply provide a service file.
> Things are complicated by the fact that packages might require systemd
> for different reasons, e.g. use some systemd helper in installation
> scriptlets. So we can't simply drop the dependency and ordering on
> systemd everywhere, but I think we could do it in many places. This
> will remove some noise, shorten our spec files a bit, and give rpm
> more freedom to order package installation according to requirements
> (there will be less requirements, so less loops).
> 
> I was planning to start the discussion on this after F30 is released,
> but since we're already discussing this, I'll try to write up a proposal
> for fedora-devel in the next few days.

Sure, I don't think I see any problems with that.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
_______________________________________________
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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux