[Mageia-dev] [Mageia-sysadm] setup package not installed until quite late on...

Mon Apr 1 18:36:41 CEST 2013

 On 1 April 2013 17:54, Colin Guthrie <mageia at colin.guthr.ie> wrote:
+>>>> dash-static requires the "mail" group defined by setup package.
+
+For which file?
+I failed to see that.
+
+>>>> So really glibc requires dash-static which requires setup which requires
+>>>> glibc and shadow-utils and run-parts...
+>>>>
+>>>> Do we really want to add this loop?
+>>>>
+>>>> I'd suggest we should rejig setup to not have a hard require on glibc,
+>>>> shadow-utils and run-parts but still run it's current scripts if the
+>>>> needed binaries/tools are installed (i.e. on package upgrade) and then
+>>>> rejig dash-static to Require(pre): setup. This should ensure things are
+>>>> installed properly (I think - although not sure how this will affect the
+>>>> initial transaction split...)
+>>>>
+>>>> Any other/better thoughts?
+>>
+>> rewrite glibc scriptlets in lua instead of sh
+>> See http://www.rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/RpmLua
+>
+> The glibc scriptlets don't seem to really *need* dash-static anyway...
+>
+> [root at jimmy ~]# rpm -q --scripts glibc| grep dash
+> preinstall scriptlet (using /usr/bin/dash.static):
+>
+>
+> So it's only the preinst script. That should be trivial to rewrite in lua.
+
+No as %post is indeed run wih glibc-post-wrapper as interpreter...
+But glibc-post-wrapper uses ash.static after running ldconfig...
+So %post should be done in lua too, and thus glibc-post-wrapper should
+be run from within lua instead of being the %post script interpreter
+
+> OK, so that does avoid the loop, but....... should we still try to work
+> out a nice way to get "setup" (and thus the default groups that packages
+> may use) installed early or is it just a housekeeping job to make sure
+> packages Require(pre) setup package if they want to use the users
+> defined in it?
+
+I would say the later but it's obvious it's prone to error, so maybe making it
+be installed early with filesystem & glibc (thus having one bigger transaction
+at first).
+Which is not appealing but can be an acceptable solution.
+On the other hand, "Anything not packaged as root.root should requires setup"
+is a bit obviouslyoverkill...
+
+> Perhaps we could add some kind of rpmfilter thingy to automatically add
+> this Require(pre)? Is that possible?
+
+I suppose it's supposed to do in rpm-setup.
+However that will make more requires to process by urpmi and thus
+bigger synthesis.
+
+> If so then it might also be
+> possible to write similar automatic Require(pre,post,etc) to packages
+> using rpm-helper stuff too... that would be be quire nice and reduce the
+> packaging burden :)
+