https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872867



--- Comment #12 from Clark Williams <willi...@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.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to