On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 04:32:54PM +0000, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 11:05 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Updated diff: > .... > > Zbyszek > > I have a preference for seeing packages follow > the current packaging guidelines (that I can find) > that say: > > Create a <package-name>.sysusers file with the user definition and > add it to the specfile as a source. > > The current diff mostly just inlines the creation of > a sysusers file, which (while there are always > special cases) does not seem to follow the > guidelines. If we are going to make a mass > change, should we not try to follow the > guidelines? Or are the guidelines going to > be changed to recommend not using > separate <package-name>.sysusers files? The latter: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1436. The reason for the separate source file was to make the %sysusers_create_compat macro work. The new solution in rpm is _much_ nicer and works just fine with either a separate source file or creation in %prep and also a file in the upstream tarball. In my patches, I used the inline creation because the definitions often used macros. In the long term, maintainers could just push those files upstream and we can drop our creation again. 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
