On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 12:02:35PM +0200, Matthias Saou wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote : > > > > > Doesn't initscripts belong to the always-assume-installed-set-of-packages- > > > > so-don't-redundandly-require-it-unless-you-need-a-versioned-dependency? > > > > > > > > Just like gcc, make etc? > > > > > > That would be the list of assumed _build_ requirements. I was asking > > > about a normal requirement for a package containing an init script > > > in /etc/rc.d/init.d/. > > > > Yes, you're right. > > > > But unless this package is installed in a chroot w/o kernel and > > friends you always have initscripts present. OTOH it isn't quite wrong > > to run daemons in chroots where appropriate. > > > > Does your script make any actual use of initscripts (like sourcing in > > parts of it) or is this just the parent directory ownership issue? > > Nothing fancy. Just a simple "service" to have run on startup, control > with chkconfig and service. I don't think "Requires: initscripts" would > improve nor fix anything, but I wanted an authoritative answer to be > 100% sure :-) Well, the authoritative answer might be that accroding to the guidelines you should add it, but given the precedent of a ton of other packages not doing it, either the ton of packages are broken (unlikely) or the guidelines need adjustment/exceptions. So if this is stalling your work we should have a quickvote on list or in the channel today. Perhaps it would help if you submit a diff to the guideline text. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp4r9HrxGeGK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
