#77 systemd-rpm-macros included in systemd on EPEL 7 (and maybe 8, too)
Opened 2 years ago by till. Modified 2 years ago

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_systemd
says to use

BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros

but this does not seem to work on EPEL 7 because the macros are in the systemd package. It also fails on RHEL8 beta in copr, did not check RHEL 8 GA, though.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging does not mention systemd.

To address this, an empty systemd-rpm-macros package that just depends on systemd could be added to EPEL or the packaging guidelines could be adapted. In the long term the RHEL maintainers could be asked to add a systemd-rpm-macros provides to the RHEL systemd package.


Would it be better to:

  1. have an empty package
  2. have epel-rpm-macros provide systemd-rpm-macros
  3. have it in the guidelines that for EPEL7 and 8 to use a working version of?
if 0%{?el7}%{?el8}
BuildRequires: systemd
else
BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros

Info: rpm macros are in systemd for RHEL8 (not systemd-rpm-macros)

Changing epel-rpm-macros to provide systemd-rpm-macros and depend on systemd would also be a nice solution. Still we can ask RHEL to add the provides to the systemd package so it would be a temporary solution (hopefully).

If changing epel-rpm-macros is not feasible, I would prefer the empty package to reduce the pitfalls/special cases for EPEL packaging.

If changing epel-rpm-macros is not feasible, I would prefer the empty package to reduce the pitfalls/special cases for EPEL packaging.

Ouch, no.
systemd-rpm-macros includes the macros for things like %systemd_post, which is used all over the place. By having an empty package you are trading one %if for two ore more %if's or empty %post, %pre, ...etc.

If changing epel-rpm-macros is not feasible, I would prefer the empty package to reduce the pitfalls/special cases for EPEL packaging.

Ouch, no.
systemd-rpm-macros includes the macros for things like %systemd_post, which is used all over the place. By having an empty package you are trading one %if for two ore more %if's or empty %post, %pre, ...etc.

Sorry ... nevermind. I just re-read your original request to have an empty package that requires systemd.
I had read the above thing in an email, out of context, and that's what I replied to.
Again, sorry for that.

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata