[Fedora-packaging] Re: Draft: Init Scripts

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 07:15:37PM +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote :
> 
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 07:15:22PM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > > Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > Here's another possibly related question I found while grepping
> > > > through core package specs:
> > > > 
> > > > Do we care about use of %{_initrddir} versus
> > > > %{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d/?  Is one preferred over the other?
> > > 
> > > imo, the former, since that is precisely what it exists for.
> > 
> > While at it could we have the typo in the macro fixed? We can keep the
> > old one indefinitely around for compatibility's sake.
> 
> Yeah, *please* don't go deciding to use a macro which has a broken and
> confusing name. I'd suggest either :
> - Using /etc/rc.d/init.d/foo "hardcoded" in %files (as Bill writes, the
> path is pretty much written in stone).

Well, /usr and /etc are even deeper carved in that stone, but we
wouldn't conclude that using the respective macros is therefore even
less important.

> - Using a new "fixed" macro for people who want that (useless?) warm
> fuzzy feeling lines beginning with "%" give them.

I vote for

+%_initdir               %{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d
+# ancient typo kept for compatibily purposes
 %_initrddir             %{_sysconfdir}/rc.d/init.d

It's the natural naming and already in use at several places besides
ATrpms:

http://www.google.com/search?q=_initdir+-site%3Aatrpms.net

-- 
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://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070226/82459efc/attachment.sig>