RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 1777110 - provide systemd-rpm-macros to keep compatibility with Fedora/EPEL packages
Summary: provide systemd-rpm-macros to keep compatibility with Fedora/EPEL packages
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8
Classification: Red Hat
Component: systemd
Version: 8.1
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: rc
: 8.0
Assignee: systemd-maint
QA Contact: Frantisek Sumsal
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-11-27 00:28 UTC by Orion Poplawski
Modified: 2023-02-12 22:27 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version: systemd-239-22.el8
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-04-28 16:45:29 UTC
Type: Bug
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker RHELPLAN-31196 0 None None None 2023-02-12 22:27:14 UTC
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2020:1794 0 None None None 2020-04-28 16:45:56 UTC

Description Orion Poplawski 2019-11-27 00:28:34 UTC 
Description of problem:

Split systemd rpm macros into systemd-rpm-macros.  This was done in Fedora (bug #1645298)
Comment 1 Michal Sekletar 2019-12-02 13:34:14 UTC 
Is there any justification except "This was done in Fedora"? 

I get the rationale for the change, but at the same time, this possibly requires spec file changes across the distribution. While the benefit is not very compelling.
Comment 2 Jan Synacek 2019-12-02 14:43:08 UTC 
To add to comment 1, I don't really see any benefits at all. The original Fedora bug mentions that the rpm macros bring dependencies, but most (if not all) of the dependencies listed in the description are actual systemd dependencies. Besides that, AFAIK we don't really support rebuilding rpms.
Comment 3 Orion Poplawski 2019-12-14 17:57:29 UTC 
Well, the Fedora packaging guidelines here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Systemd/ say:

```
Filesystem locations

Packages with systemd unit files must put them into %{_unitdir}. %{_unitdir} evaluates to /usr/lib/systemd/system on all Fedora systems (F-15+). Unit files are architecture independent (hence, not %{_lib}) and needed early in the boot process.

Please note that in order for the %{_unitdir} macro to exist, your package must have:

BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros
```

The orignal idea was to reduce the number of build time dependencies to speed package building.  I honestly do not know if that is still effective.

There are a number of packages in Fedora that have that and so they will fail to build on EL8.  I thought there was more of an effort for RHEL to be compatible with Fedora packaging, but I guess not.
Comment 4 David Tardon 2019-12-15 18:33:21 UTC 
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #3)
> There are a number of packages in Fedora that have that and so they will
> fail to build on EL8.

So it would be completely sufficient to add

Provides: systemd-rpm-macros

and everyone would be happy.
Comment 10 errata-xmlrpc 2020-04-28 16:45:29 UTC 
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2020:1794
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.