Too many unowned directories

[James Antill]

On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 13:22 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 13:21 -0500, James Antill wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-01-31 at 00:36 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Jesse Keating píše v Pá 30. 01. 2009 v 13:22 -0800:
> > > >> Why not fail the build if unowned directories are found, just like we do
> > > >> for unowned files?  That way you catch it at build time before you try
> > > >> and do something useful with the build.
> > > > How do we determine which directory is unowned and which is provided by
> > > > a dependency?  If we don't, every package would have to own /usr.
> > > 
> > > It'd be possible to turn the topmost unowned directory into a file (well, 
> > > directory) dependency. Either at build time, which would cause a big pile 
> > > of new file dependencies in the metadata, or rpm could generate them at 
> > > runtime. The problem with runtime generated dependencies is just that yum 
> > > & the like wouldn't be able to resolve them without fairly big changes.
> > 
> >  It'd be painful to have everything have a "Requires: /usr" (or
> > whatever) as it would make filelists mandatory for every update ... but
> > it would just work, with yum.
> 
> Not that I'd suggest this but we _could_ add dirs to the primary
> filelist....

 I'm not sure that'd work well as you can't tell from just the path
whether it's a file or a dir.
 Much better to have something like dir(/usr) provides/requires, this
should then also work with apt-rpm/smart/whatever. But that could be
stage2, if we wanted to try it ... it still might bloat the primary a
bit, but maybe not much.

-- 
James Antill - james at fedoraproject.org
"I'd just like to see a realistic approach to updates via
 packages." -- Les Mikesell