On 08/21/2012 05:08 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 21.08.12 16:52, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johan...@gmail.com) wrote:
>On 08/21/2012 02:52 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >However, the person who is sending these bugs reports is
> >(a) in a much better position to change the packages because they
> >understand the problem and the solution, and (b) ought to take on this
> >work because that's part of whatever feature/cleanup/etc they are
> >proposing, instead of pushing part of that work off to everyone else.
>
>That's how I*initially* though the feature process worked as in the
>feature owner always has to do all the work.
>
>Then again I suspect not many maintainers will do this change since
>if I'm not mistaken it a) means they have to have separated spec
>files for <F18 and b) will break everybody's upgrade path since if
>I'm not mistaken preset*resets* units enable/disablement*again* (
>it happens when the legacy sysv to systemd migration takes place
>)...
No, presets don't reset existing enablement/disablement status.
Presets only matter with the initial installation of a package and when
a package is converted from sysv to systemd, but do not matter if a
package already uses systemd unit files, or just converts non-macro
scriptlets to macro scriptlets.
But it's still necessary to keep two separate spec files ( <F18 & F18> )
+ given the time of the packaging guideline changes and the branching
happening the *day after* I tempted to put on my QA hat and argue this
should only apply to F19 not F18 and from the looks of it the Red Hat's
systemd *Team* is behind this which constitutes of what 5 - 10 people
now so there should be sufficient manpower for those that requested this
to actually make those changes themselves before F19 get's released...
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
