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 after systemd is misguided / outdated.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
