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

Paul Howarth paul at city-fan.org
Mon Oct 24 09:33:25 UTC 2005


Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le lundi 24 octobre 2005 à 01:30 +0200, Michael Schwendt a écrit :
> 
>>On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:40:50 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Le dimanche 23 octobre 2005 à 20:49 +0200, Hans de Goede a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Also the "This also makes file/path based
>>>>dependencies impossible, since for any package which would want to
>>>>"Requires: /usr/share/mc" a dep resolver would run into an ambiguity."
>>>>Argument made by Michael is IMHO a pure theoretical and thus not valid 
>>>>argument, why would a package ever want todo a thing like "Requires: 
>>>>/usr/share/mc"?
>>>
>>>Indeed. If one really wanted to require mc without specifying any
>>>package name, /usr/bin/mc would be the thing to ask for.
>>
>>No, indeed not. What you call a purely theoretical dependency is "one
>>package requiring the root directory of something else". No more, no
>>less.
> 
> 
> Then have gnumeric require this dir. I don't care.
> 
> What you can't do is:
> 1. state this dir may be required by packages that need to stuff things
> inside
> 2. ergo, ownership can not be shared
> 3. but since in gnumeric case you find it too much hassle, do not
> actually do 1. and keep 2.. But 2. is only a good rule if you do 1. If
> you don't do 1., I don't see why other packages would, and so 2. has no
> base at all.

Couldn't this be resolved by splitting out the files that go in 
/usr/share/mc into a separate gnumeric-mc package, and make that 
dependent on mc?

I have to agree with Nicolas that rules about directory ownership should 
apply consistently, and not be ignored when it's inconvenient.

Paul.




More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list