Björn Persson kirjoitti 6.8.2021 klo 2.44:
Petr Menšík wrote:
No, that is the reason why I proposed it. Guidelines already state
*-filesystem packages does not have to be depended on [1]. Just one,
probably systemd or systemd-libs, should depend on it to get it
installed. All other can then just
On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 05:26:49PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 06. 08. 21 v 12:56 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
> >On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 11:43:52AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >>Dne 05. 08. 21 v 18:47 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
> >>>On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 04:45:31PM +
Sure, it would contain some files on almost every system anyway.
If it contains already /usr/lib64/pm-utils/power.d, I guess it can
(co)own few directories of systemd. Much more used in my opinion.
Opened pull request for it:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/filesystem/pull-request/6
On 8/6/2
Dne 06. 08. 21 v 12:56 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 11:43:52AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 05. 08. 21 v 18:47 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 04:45:31PM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
Depends on how many maintainers should fix thei
On 06/08/2021 01:44, Björn Persson wrote:
That is, each of those 1600 packages would need to require
systemd-filesystem.
Perhaps this can be done automatically on the rpmbuild side: if a unit
file is present, add a dependency on the systemd-filesystem package, as
has already been done with CM
On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 11:43:52AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 05. 08. 21 v 18:47 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
> >On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 04:45:31PM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
> >>Depends on how many maintainers should fix their package, more below.
> >>
> >>On 8/4/21 4:22 PM, Zbign
Dne 05. 08. 21 v 18:47 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 04:45:31PM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
Depends on how many maintainers should fix their package, more below.
On 8/4/21 4:22 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 10:27:10AM +0200, Petr
On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 01:44:25AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> Petr Menšík wrote:
> > No, that is the reason why I proposed it. Guidelines already state
> > *-filesystem packages does not have to be depended on [1]. Just one,
> > probably systemd or systemd-libs, should depend on it to get it
> >
Petr Menšík wrote:
> No, that is the reason why I proposed it. Guidelines already state
> *-filesystem packages does not have to be depended on [1]. Just one,
> probably systemd or systemd-libs, should depend on it to get it
> installed. All other can then just ignore the directory exactly as you
>
On 8/5/21 6:47 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 04:45:31PM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
>> Depends on how many maintainers should fix their package, more below.
>>
>> On 8/4/21 4:22 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 10:27:10AM +0200, Pe
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 04:45:31PM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
> Depends on how many maintainers should fix their package, more below.
>
> On 8/4/21 4:22 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 10:27:10AM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
> >> Hi Zbyszek,
> >>
> >> thanks for your
Depends on how many maintainers should fix their package, more below.
On 8/4/21 4:22 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 10:27:10AM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
>> Hi Zbyszek,
>>
>> thanks for your comment. Wouldn't it be much clearer instead of turning
>> bind eye on the
On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 10:27:10AM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
> Hi Zbyszek,
>
> thanks for your comment. Wouldn't it be much clearer instead of turning
> bind eye on the issue creating noarch systemd-filesystem subpackage,
> which would own:
>
> %files filesystem
> %dir %_unitdir
> %dir %_userunit
Hi Zbyszek,
thanks for your comment. Wouldn't it be much clearer instead of turning
bind eye on the issue creating noarch systemd-filesystem subpackage,
which would own:
%files filesystem
%dir %_unitdir
%dir %_userunitdir
%dir %_tmpfilesdir
%dir %_sysusersdir
and systemd would just contain requi
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 05:12:22PM +0200, Petr Menšík wrote:
> It seems to me most of common services do not require systemd for
> functionality. They might be able to be installed in container without
> systemd involved. The more I look at [1], the more I think common
> package with some service s
It seems to me most of common services do not require systemd for
functionality. They might be able to be installed in container without
systemd involved. The more I look at [1], the more I think common
package with some service should usually include just
%systemd_{post,preun,postun_with_restart}
No, my packages do not always require systemd. It might be error in some
cases, but I think %{?systemd_requires} is the only part usually
required. Which means systemd has to be there during updates, but
otherwise it leaves %_unitdir/*.service _partially_ reside in unowned
directory. It is owned ju
Your package require systemd?
Systemd own this directory?
If yes it is OK
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_the_directory_is_also_owned_by_a_package_implementing_required_functionality_of_your_package
If you mean warning from fedora-review then it tool may be old. But
re
18 matches
Mail list logo
