2014-07-14 1:25 GMT+09:00 Christian Boltz
What about this: (from the spec, marked line added)
%if 0%{?suse_version} ... BuildRequires: libzypp BuildRequires: yum # <----- try adding this line
Thank you for being interested in etckeeper.
I added it.
But upstream Makefile supports only 1 HIGHLEVEL_PACKAGE_MANAGER.
http://git.kitenet.net/?p=etckeeper.git;a=blob;f=Makefile;h=cf034a2d5098ec6d...
And /etc/etckeeper/etckeeper.conf have to write only 1
HIGHLEVEL_PACKAGE_MANAGER.
http://git.kitenet.net/?p=etckeeper.git;a=blob;f=etckeeper.conf;h=f988c10e4d...
For building yum-plugin in openSUSE,
I called "make" and "make install" twice for YUM and ZYpper in spec_file.
https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/home:Mitsutoshi:branches:utilit...
(I will rollback this package soon.)
I culd build yum-plugin on openSUSE.
Now openSUSE users may be able to choose YUM or zypper.
(I do not test yet.)
But we have 2 problems.
1. We have a bug.
At present, it seems that etckeeper use $HIGHLEVEL_PACKAGE_MANAGER
only for logging messages .
But if we use double package-managers,
We have a bug.
For example, when HIGHLEVEL_PACKAGE_MANAGER=zypper in etckeeper.conf,
if we type "yum erase package", then VCS log says "zypper run".
2. It is very tricky.
The upstream do not think that users use 2 package-managers.
In spite of it, if we use 2 package-managers,
I am afraid we have troubles.
If we want to use both ZYypper and YUM, we must modify many source files.
We need to talk with upstream.
I think that openSUSE's etckeeper should support only zypper,
and I think that supporting YUM is future study.
--
1xx