On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 03:19:43AM -0400, James Antill wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-07-02 at 10:22 +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > > > > I love the goal, but this document says very little about the means > > > to achieve that goal. I would like to see specific solutions > > > described for each class of scriptlets that is present, including > > > approximate numbers of packages that are affected. As often, the > > > devil is in the details, and there indeed are classes of scriptlets > > > which have been successfully made obsolete and we now only need to > > > get rid of the usage usage in spec files, but then there are other > > > classes of scriptlets which might be very hard to replace. > > > > Yes, we've had a spreadsheet for a bit with that data (raw data > > generated by[1]), I'll try to get that into html/wiki this week. > > For a significant portion of the work the plan is: > > > > 1. ldconfig => delete them as not needed > Right. It's insane how many of those we still have. On my F30 box, > "rpm -q -a --scripts |rg -c ldconfig" says 107! Getting rid of those > would certainly be nice. > > > 2. adduser/group/etc. => sysusers files > > 3. touch/mv/cp/etc. => systemd-tmpfiles > tmpfiles doesn't support moving stuff. It might be possible to make > do with a copy and remove operation, but that doesn't seem nice. > > Otherwise, tmpfiles and sysusers are there, and should work. But > sysusers hasn't such thaaat much exposure yet. But if there are any > shortcomings, we should be able to fix them. > > > ...there have been ideas for some of the exceptional cases, but if we > > don't it all of them for F31 we'll still be in a better place for F32. > > Agreed. I'm not yet convinced we can get rid of all scriptlets in a way > that would require workarounds that are more painful than the original > scriptlets, but I'm sure we can should down 90% of scriptlets. > I disagree about the user/group creation, at least the way it's being planned in here. The way openSUSE solved this problem probably makes sense for dealing with issues like needing the users+groups to exist before package is being installed: 1. sysusers are in their own (sub)packages, dep generators generate user() and group() Provides 2. main package can require those user() and group() names, forcing the sysusers to be installed first 3. Transaction ordering deals with the rest of the problem :) -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
