ville.skytta@xxxxxx (Ville Skyttä) writes: >> 3. Would it be really a problem to maintain another spec-file? > > Do I really have to answer that question? I think, it is wasted time to try to write spec-files which are running on all and every distribution. Finally you will end in a bunch of conditional macros and with such macros, you can choose between fedora-usermgmt and plain useradd. People who want universal specfiles can write | %pre | if test -x /usr/sbin/fedora-useradd; then | /usr/sbin/fedora-useradd ... | else | /usr/sbin/useradd ... | fi with current fedora-usermgmt. >> > # Note lowest common dependency: no fedora-useradd or mgmt here >> > Requires(pre): /usr/sbin/useradd >> >> This would not work well with vanilla installations because you can >> not tell an installation order there. Therefore, 'fedora-usermgmt' >> must be a Requires(...): > > No it doesn't because it's not *required at all* in this approach. > And like I mentioned, users of fedora-usermgmt have to configure it > beforehand anyway in order to get it to make any difference. In your > words: "It behaves exactly like a plain 'useradd' without explicit > activation". This explicit activation can happen in the %pre script of kickstart. In the following package installation, packages must be in the proper order. > about how fedora-usermgmt-like stuff could be implemented in a less > intrusive way. Sadly, from your comments I can't help getting the > feeling that you're not really interested in achieving that in the > first place. fedora-usermgmt is already minimally intrusive. I do not think that avoiding work to port spec files to non-Fedora Extras distributions would justify the added complexity in scriptlets. Enrico
Attachment:
pgpCjWCjSrs8s.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
