On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 07:15:37PM +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote :
>
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 07:15:22PM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > > Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > Here's another possibly related question I found while grepping
> > > > through core package specs:
> > > >
> > > > Do we care about use of %{_initrddir} versus
> > > > %{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d/? Is one preferred over the other?
> > >
> > > imo, the former, since that is precisely what it exists for.
> >
> > While at it could we have the typo in the macro fixed? We can keep the
> > old one indefinitely around for compatibility's sake.
>
> Yeah, *please* don't go deciding to use a macro which has a broken and
> confusing name. I'd suggest either :
> - Using /etc/rc.d/init.d/foo "hardcoded" in %files (as Bill writes, the
> path is pretty much written in stone).
Well, /usr and /etc are even deeper carved in that stone, but we
wouldn't conclude that using the respective macros is therefore even
less important.
> - Using a new "fixed" macro for people who want that (useless?) warm
> fuzzy feeling lines beginning with "%" give them.
I vote for
+%_initdir %{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d
+# ancient typo kept for compatibily purposes
%_initrddir %{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d
It's the natural naming and already in use at several places besides
ATrpms:
http://www.google.com/search?q=_initdir+-site%3Aatrpms.net
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp76hj2Vau4W.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
