Hi Tadej, On Thursday, 22 October 2015 at 10:03, Tadej Janež wrote: > Hi! [...] > My naive attempt at using them was to follow [4] and just replace all % > systemd_* calls with appropriate %systemd_user_* calls (and %_unitdir > with %_userunitdir). The SPEC file can be viewed here: > https://github.com/tjanez/bup-package/blob/5f4abed/bup.spec > > However, this doesn't work as expected. This is the output of rpmlint: > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: bup-0.27-0.3.fc24.x86_64.rpm > bup-web-0.27-0.3.fc24.x86_64.rpm > bup-0.27-0.3.fc24.src.rpm > bup.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) packfile -> pack file, > pack-file, packsaddle > [... trimmed spelling warnings ...] > bup-web.x86_64: W: empty-%postun > bup.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) packfile -> pack file, > pack-file, packsaddle > [... trimmed spelling warnings ...] > bup.src: E: specfile-error systemd_post: invalid option -- '-' > bup.src: E: specfile-error error: Unknown option - in systemd_post() > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 15 warnings. I wouldn't worry about rpmlint errors in this case. As you said yourself, there are not specific guidelines for packaging user instance services, so you've just entered unknown territory, so rpmlint errors related to that might be expected. Does the user instance service work as expected? If yes, then we would very much appreciate it if you documented your efforts in form of an update to the systemd packaging guidelines and submitted it in fpc trac (https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/). Filing a bug against rpmlint to support this way of service packaging is of course also a good idea. [...] > [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd Regards, Dominik -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
