Matthias Saou wrote:
Bernard Johnson wrote :
> Matthias Saou wrote:
>> Nope. The current guidelines don't mention anything about this AFAICT.
>> It's the reviewer of my package who thinks it should be added, and had
>> it confirmed by someone on IRC (which isn't something I'd consider
> Really, how can you say that. [...]
I'm not sure what you mean :
- The current init scripts guidelines don't mention anything else than
the fact that the scripts shouldn't be marked as %config.
- The reviewer of my package (you) thinks the requirement should be
- You had someone on IRC (I don't know who) confirm your opinion...
without further details, I can definitely not consider this a strong or
even valid argument.
Basically, this is what "I can say that" :-)
I should have been more clear. I was only talking about your
misrepresentation of the irc sources as not "trustworthy".
without further details, I can definitely not consider this a strong
or even valid argument.
And you made this decision without knowing anything about the
discussion, people involved, etc. - without asking for details. Please
If you want to say that opinions were collected "off the record" and
you'd like to bring it to the mailing list, that's fine.
Furthermore, I did not ask someone to "confirm my opinion". I simply
asked "can initscripts be assumed to always be installed". Everyone who
responded said no. I then pointed out the kernel->initscripts requires
were present at which point it was pointed out to me that kernel can be
removed if a custom kernel is built - then initscripts would be not
necessarily required on the system. I would say that I was arguing your
position more than getting mine confirmed.
I am not trying to be your adversary here. Your position was presented
fairly. I'm giving you feedback, which IMHO, is correct.
> So consider the case that someone compiles and runs their own
> removes the fedora kernel from the system. Until this was pointed out
> to me, I did not know how few dependencies there were (at least in newer
> fedora releases). This is totally plausible. And then if they remove
> initscripts (because nothing else depends on it), your package is
> broken. This is why it should require initscripts.
Hey, I'm not saying you're wrong! I'm just saying that I've never put
an explicit "initscripts" requirement in any package with an init
script (nor do I recall seeing any Red Hat package with it). I'm also
saying that my preference would be to not put it there, since it's
assumed to be there, and any Fedora system will have it installed.
Since you did not respond to the clarification that your program "needs"
initscripts, I'll assume you agree with that point.
The remaining discussion should then be around your claim that "it's
assumed to be there, and any Fedora system will have it installed.".
I've shown a case for when it may not.
I would also like clarification (and opinions) from everyone on what
exactly can be assumed to be ALWAYS installed on the system. We have
such a list for BRs but I haven't seen any more Requires. (Maybe I'm
just missing it).
If running a non-Fedora kernel can be considered unsupported (you must
always run / have installed a Fedora kernel), then that should be clarified.
If the Packaging Committee decides that it's best to put it, then
it, but I prefer discussing the matter here.
I hardly think this is appropriate for the PC at this point, but feel
free free to throw anything you want to them - I won't be offended.