umask package policy

[Ville Skyttä]

On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 00:00 +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville Skyttä) writes:
> 
> > Using context marked dependencies like Requires(pre) to "solve" this is
> > abuse, please don't do that.
> 
> Why abuse? There is no other way to say 'I require directory /foo before
> my files will be installed' for a package.

"Requires(pre): /foo" does not say that.  It says "directory /foo is
required until my %pre script has completed".  See the description in
the max-rpm snapshot (link in my previous mail).

>  rpm could introduce a special
> 'filesystem' classifier so that the two 'Requires(pre|postun)' can be
> replaced by a single one.

That would be replacing apples with oranges.  Such replacement would
make no sense because they mean different things.

>  But that's not backward compatible and will
> probably never be implemented.

No need to implement that because "Requires: /foo" and "PreReq: /foo"
already accomplish what you described above.

> > Plain Requires is fine as long as there are no dependency loops
> > involved.
> 
> Why should I trust in some preconditions which can never be guaranted
> instead of enforcing the correct behavior?

You are using side effects of tools not meant to enforce what you're
trying to achieve.  In other words, abusing them.  What's wrong with
plain Requires or PreReq?