On 08/21/2012 05:08 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 21.08.12 16:52, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johannbg@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