Packaging/Review Guidelines change

[Dariusz J. Garbowski]

On 01/05/2006 09:38 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
>>>>>>"Nicolas" == Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net> writes:
> 
> 
> Nicolas> Le jeudi 05 janvier 2006 à 14:42 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway a
> Nicolas> écrit :
> 
> 
>>>The only exception case is where two packages use the same
>>>directory structure (outside of the FHS), but neither relies on the
>>>other one (aka, either one could be installed first, or without the
>>>other). Then, and only then, its acceptable for both packages to
>>>own the directory, as they both have the potential to be
>>>"first". This is a corner case, though.
> 
> 
> Nicolas> Sure it's a corner case. But the devil is in the details, so
> Nicolas> it needs to be documented (more than the usual case which
> Nicolas> almost no one gets wrong nowadays)
> 
> An example I have of this is the munin package. 
> 
> There is a main 'munin' package that is only installed on a collector
> machine, and then a 'munin-node' subpackage thats installed on all the
> nodes you want to monitor. Either one or both could be installed on
> any given machine. They both use /var/lib/munin/ to store state and
> /var/log/munin/ to store logs. 
> 
> So, they both need to own those directories. 
> 
> One thing worth noting in this case is that both packages should have
> the same permissions and ownership. Otherwise the last package
> installed will override the previous package, possibly leading to
> maddness and chaos. :) 

I have been hit by this. Here's bugzilla:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176529

Regards,
Dariusz

		
___________________________________________________________ 
NEW Yahoo! Cars - sell your car and browse thousands of new and used cars online! http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/