-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 06/10/2013 07:17 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (10/06/13 10:03), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 06:24:48PM +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
- I like idea of divided subpackages. If someone wants only
ldap backend, he needn't install samba-libs (and its dependencies)
- There isn't any rpmlint warnings.
I tested yum upgrade upgrade with installed sssd and freeipa-client. New packages were installed for dependencies: sssd-ad sssd-common sssd-ipa sssd-krb5 sssd-krb5-common sssd-ldap Everything worked as expected.
Then I decided to remove sssd-ad: yum remove sssd-ad and packeges "freeipa-client, sssd" were also removed. I was little bit confused, because I didn't want to remove sssd and sssd replied to getent command after packages "freeipa-client, sssd" were removed.
That's because freeipa-client currently requires sssd, we might want open a ticket to make them require just sssd-ipa.
The most confusing thing was for me that sssd was removed. Yes, we should file a ticket to freeipa-client after releasing sssd.
I think, that other users may be also confused with this situation. Then I looked to the patch and I found out, that: --sssd is only "meta package",which require all backedns subpackages --sssd doesn't contain any useful files --everything important is in package sssd-common.
Maybe we should update package description of sssd and sssd-common. I hope that system administrators relies on output of "yum info" and there isn't it very well explained.
Thanks, I updated the summary of both sssd and sssd-common. Hopefully it would be clearer now.
Thank you.
Summary: Everything works well, but I was little bit confused.
Any other opinions?
One nitpick inline
I think, that patches are OK. Does anybody have another comments or objections?
Nack.
When adding "Provides:" and "Obsoletes:", it is inappropriate to do Obsoletes: libsss_sudo < %{version}-%{release}
The Fedora guidelines require that the Obsoletes: be a specific version (the last one before the change occurred). So
Obsoletes: libsss_sudo <= 1.9.5
The reason for this is so we don't force yum to handle Obsoletes processing at every update (which I'm told is expensive).
We only need to carry this explicit Obsoletes: until Fedora no longer has install media with the older version (so until F19 is the oldest supported version).
Why do you have Conflicts: sssd < %{version}-%{release}? Given that the packages are identically-named (and that name isn't 'kernel'), this should be unnecessary.
Is there a particular reason that the proxy provider doesn't have a subpackage as well?
If we're breaking up packages to make it easier to create a minimal install, might it be best to just drop all of the manpages into an sssd-docs subpackage (that gets pulled in by the sssd metapackage)? Including translations, those can add up. Which brings me to my next point:
The provider subpackages have only the English manpage included in them. The translated ones are all landing in the sssd-common package.