Re: [rfc] mass package change to introduce sysusers.d configs

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

 



On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 11:08 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.

Wouldn't the config-file-as-separate-source-file approach would be
more or less backwards compatible,
whereas creating the config snippet in-line is only compatible with F42+?
Naively, I would think that the more-or-less-backwards-compatible
approach would be easier to conditionalize so changes can continue to
be cherry-picked or even merged to stable branches.

Fabio
-- 
_______________________________________________
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




[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