rpms/gnumeric/FC-4 gnumeric.spec,1.3,1.4

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le dimanche 23 octobre 2005 à 14:39 +0200, Michael Schwendt a écrit :
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:22:06 -0400, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 
> > Author: jwrdegoede
> > 
> > Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gnumeric/FC-4
> 
> > Log Message:
> > own dirs /usr/share/mc/templates /usr/share/mc
> 
> This is exaggeration. Unowned directories due to optional dependencies are
> not worth fixing like this. This creates a situation where package
> "gnumeric" _and_ "mc" own /usr/share/mc while it ought to be _only_ "mc"
> which should own that directory. If "mc" is not installed, the mc files
> included in gnumeric are useless anyway. 

Then they should not be installed at all.

When a package installs files it must make bloody sure it either owns
the directory roots these files use or depend on another package that
does. I'm dead tired of all the phylosophic arguments that leave
dangling directories all over the filesystem, for the sysadmin to scap
manually later.

Limiting directory ownership has always only been a workaround made
necessary by rpm limitations, it's not an end in itself and certainly
not an excuse to hang files on thin air. jbj has noted long ago the
correct thing to do would be for every package to own every single path
it needed, if rpm could sanely support it. Note there is a *large* gray
area between owning every path (which would overwhelm current rpm) and
never sharing dir ownership (which would require massive package
split-ups to avoid dangling dirs). In many cases (like there) multiple
directory owners are preferable to package split-up. OTOH dangling dirs
is never an acceptable solution.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20051023/4c714475/attachment.sig>