[Fedora-packaging] Re: Requires: initscripts?

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 11:52:04AM +0200, Matthias Saou wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote :
> 
> > On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 10:38:00AM +0200, Matthias Saou wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I've never added "Requires: initscripts" to packages which contain an
> > > init script before. I've now been asked to in this review :
> > > 
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233455
> > > 
> > > I like to avoid as many explicit requirements as possible, and in this
> > > particular case, the "require packages owning parent directories of our
> > > files and directories" of recent rpm versions (unfortunately not in
> > > Fedora, though IIRC) would take care of things.
> > > 
> > > So my question : As long as the Requires(...) for the scriplets are fine
> > > in order to get the package properly installed, updated and erased, do
> > > we still need to add that explicit requirement?
> > > 
> > > I would say we don't, but I prefer asking to be sure...
> > > 
> > > Matthias
> > 
> > Doesn't initscripts belong to the always-assume-installed-set-of-packages-
> > so-don't-redundandly-require-it-unless-you-need-a-versioned-dependency?
> > 
> > Just like gcc, make etc?
> 
> That would be the list of assumed _build_ requirements. I was asking
> about a normal requirement for a package containing an init script
> in /etc/rc.d/init.d/.

Yes, you're right.

But unless this package is installed in a chroot w/o kernel and
friends you always have initscripts present. OTOH it isn't quite wrong
to run daemons in chroots where appropriate.

Does your script make any actual use of initscripts (like sourcing in
parts of it) or is this just the parent directory ownership issue?
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20070508/3c25e75e/attachment.bin