https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872867
--- Comment #12 from Clark Williams williams@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #11)
(In reply to Clark Williams from comment #9)
Not sure I agree with this. The config file is strictly for the use of the unit file and I got the impression that the customary place for these paramter files was in /etc/systemd. Let me dig a little deeper here.
IMHO environment files are usually installed under the /etc/sysconfig, it's sysvinit legacy, but it's not IMHO explicitly written in the guidelines. I think /etc/systemd is really bad option, e.g.: $ dnf repoquery --whatprovides '/etc/systemd/*' Fedora Modular 31 - x86_64 - Updates 25 kB/s | 22 kB 00:00 Fedora 31 - x86_64 - Updates 207 kB/s | 22 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Free tainted 19 kB/s | 8.8 kB 00:00 systemd-0:243-4.gitef67743.fc31.i686 systemd-0:243-4.gitef67743.fc31.x86_64 systemd-0:243.8-1.fc31.i686 systemd-0:243.8-1.fc31.x86_64
but: $ dnf repoquery --whatprovides '/etc/sysconfig/*' | wc -l Poslední kontrola metadat: před 0:03:29, Po 31. srpna 2020, 18:40:00 CEST. 466
yeah, I re-read the systemd packaging guidelines (link in c#10) and they to mention using /etc/sysconfig. So I changed to use that.
- Nice to have (not a blocker): consider adding license file to the upstream
project and installing it in the spec by the %license tag, e.g.: %license LICENSE.txt
I added an SPDX tag to the source specifically so we didn't have to carry a licence file. Do you know if there's any effort in Fedora to move the packaging requirements to using SPDX?
It's just optional. Regarding the SPDX I think it's not explicitly supported, but maybe better to ask on fedora-devel mailing list.
I'll talk to Daniel about adding a License file to the upstream project. Still trying to get the tarball situation straight so our URLs can be fully kernel.org.
I pushed new spec/SRPM/tarball to jcwillia.fedorapeople.org.