On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 05:26:49PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 06. 08. 21 v 12:56 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
> >On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 11:43:52AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >>Dne 05. 08. 21 v 18:47 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
> >>>On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 04:45:31PM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
> >>>>Depends on how many maintainers should fix their package, more below.
> >>>>
> >>>>On 8/4/21 4:22 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >>>>>On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 10:27:10AM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
> >>>>>>Hi Zbyszek,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>thanks for your comment. Wouldn't it be much clearer instead of turning
> >>>>>>bind eye on the issue creating noarch systemd-filesystem subpackage,
> >>>>>>which would own:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>%files filesystem
> >>>>>>%dir %_unitdir
> >>>>>>%dir %_userunitdir
> >>>>>>%dir %_tmpfilesdir
> >>>>>>%dir %_sysusersdir
> >>>>>I don't think so. This is an intrusive solution: visible to users
> >>>>>in package upgrade outputs, annoying to package maintainers.
> >>>>Does it bother users to include new dependencies during upgrades? I
> >>>>would not certainly notice when I upgrade ~500 packages every week.
> >>>>Annoying to how many package maintainers? Would owning those directories
> >>>>by every package using those directories would be less annoying?
> >>>>
> >>>>Alternative would be moving these empty directories into systemd-libs,
> >>>>which is installed in fedora:rawhide podman container. It seems also in
> >>>>mock build environments. No public visible changes, what would you think?
> >>>>
> >>>>[root@8fec9bc0b895 /]# rpm -qf /usr/lib/systemd/system/
> >>>>file /usr/lib/systemd/system is not owned by any package
> >>>>
> >>>>>>and systemd would just contain requirement on it
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Requires: %{name}-filesystem
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>This would be 100% according to the Guidelines, every automated tools
> >>>>>>should not raise any warning and developers would not have to pretend
> >>>>>>they haven't seen it. Instead of silently breaching our guidelines, can
> >>>>>>we adjust it to follow them?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Shall I try a pull request on systemd?
> >>>>>No, I don't think -filesystem packages are a solution we should be
> >>>>>recommending nowadays. If you want strict conformance to the guidelines,
> >>>>>insert '%dir %_unitdir' in the package: this is also a one-line solution
> >>>>>and doesn't require any other changes.
> >>>>What I don't like about this approach, it would result in ~1600 times
> >>>>single line for every package delivering some unit file. Or the same
> >>>>number of rules violation. Versus single package change working for all
> >>>>of them. I admit it would mean your package should be updated instead of
> >>>>mine (and others). I would update it if I were in your position.
> >>>But most of those 1600 packages would need to add Requires:systemd-filesystem.
> >>>(As discussed earlier in the thread, no Requires:systemd dependency is
> >>>needed nowadays.)
> >>>
> >>>N.B.: If we're going to add a line to 1600 packages, I think it's much better
> >>>to add one line in %files
> >>
> >>Not expert on systemd or unit files, but if there is some directory
> >>structure, where there is basically just one file, isn't it better
> >>to own some of the top levels of the directory structure instead of
> >>the specific file? Maybe the guidelines should be updated to specify
> >>the package should own %_unitdir instead of the unit file.
> >The guidelines already specify that. (They say that package must either
> >depend on a package that owns the directory, which would generally be
> >systemd, though there are other packages which co-own the directory,
> >or own the directory itself.) We're discussing how to satisfy this without
> >depending on systemd. Björn's idea of adding it to filesystem I think is
> >the most reasonable solution.
>
>
> Sorry, I think I did not explained it understandably. So there is
> this %files section [1] in the systemd guidelines where could be
> something like:
>
>
> ~~~
>
> Do not list each individual unit file in the %files section. Instead
> list just /usr/lib/systemd (or whatever suitable macro there is)
> directory to properly own the unit files as well as the directory
> structure where they reside.
That's not necessarily good advice, because it makes it harder to
notice when new units are added to the package. They should also be
added to scriptlets, and possibly other adjustments made…
But anyway, I think Petr's pull request for filesystem makes this
moot.
Zbyszek
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
