On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:22:21AM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 2:20 AM Jason L Tibbitts III
<tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "ZJ" == Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> writes:
>
> ZJ> I think it's pretty clear: all the standard invocations of
> ZJ> scriptlets that have by replaced by transfiletriggers will be
> ZJ> removed, along with the whole %post/%postun sections if its the only
> ZJ> thing in them.
>
> I do think it would be better to list exactly what is expected to be
> changed (and which packages actually need which changes).
Done.
* ldconfig scriptlets will be removed (or by maintainer request will
be replaced by %ldconfig_scriptlets macro which exists on Fedora and
EPEL)
* gtk-update-icon-cache, glib-compile-schemas,
gdk-pixbuf-query-loaders, gtk-query-immodules-3.0, gio-querymodules
and install-info will be removed (or by maintainer request will be
guarded with %if's)
> ZJ> I think that the way this should be handled is that if maintainers
> ZJ> of a package want to use a single branch for F30+ and
> ZJ> EPEL/RHEL/whatever, it is on them to arrange the spec file with the
> ZJ> appropriate conditionals.
>
> Well, that's what makes it tough. You can remove the scriptlets, or you
> can replace them with the various sets of macros which do nothing on
> Fedora and do something on EPEL (to the extent that is even possible).
> The macros needed are often context-dependent. Certainly just removing
> things is simplest but will cause the most upset.
>
> It's not trivial to know if a maintainer insists on the single spec
> approach, so it can be rather difficult to do this in an automated
> fashion. Of course it would be easy if everyone just fixed the packages
> they maintain so that there's no need for automated fixup. I'd hope
> that some of that might happen if the lists of packages which need
> changes are provided. I did some of that a couple of releases ago and I
> could try to do it again if someone could lengthen the day by a few
> hours.
I've updated change which is explicitly mentions that I'm going to
send Pull Requests to packages, so it should not make anyone unhappy.
Are you sure this is a viable approach?
$ rpm -qa --scripts|grep ldconfig|wc -l
1130
(and I have only 5k packages installed, 20% of the whole distro?).
Counting one PR for every two ldconfigs, you'd have to open maybe
500-2000 PRs. Not only is it a waste of _your_ time, but of the other
500-2000 people to answer this.
Zbyszek