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