| 1 |
On 4/23/19 2:03 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> We have two eclasses with almost-identical functions for handling |
| 3 |
> tmpfiles.d entries: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> 1. systemd.eclass |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> a. systemd_dotmpfilesd |
| 8 |
> b. systemd_newtmpfilesd |
| 9 |
> c. systemd_tmpfiles_create |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> 2. tmpfiles.eclass |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> a. dotmpfiles |
| 14 |
> b. newtmpfiles |
| 15 |
> c. tmpfiles_process |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> The do/new functions are basically identical, while the create/process |
| 18 |
> functions differ only in the fact that the one from tmpfiles.eclass |
| 19 |
> supports opentmpfiles as well. Why do we have both? Couldn't the |
| 20 |
> systemd.eclass ones be implemented in terms of the tmpfiles.eclass ones, |
| 21 |
> and then deprecated (in favor of tmpfiles.eclass itself) in newer EAPIs? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Or am I missing something? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Note that systemd.eclass is lighter on dependencies, which is why I |
| 26 |
chose it for the solution to bug 490676 [1] and bug 643386 [2] in the |
| 27 |
sys-apps/portage ebuilds. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/490676 |
| 30 |
[2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/643386 |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Thanks, |
| 33 |
Zac |
Archives