[Bug 177580] Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: lat  (LDAP Administration Tool)


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580





------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org  2006-06-17 11:28 EST -------
(In reply to comment #45)
> (In reply to comment #44)
> > Not necessary (which should be evident from the fact that the package built
> > successfully on the buildsystem). The dep chain is:
> > 
> > gtk-sharp2 -> gnome-panel -> gnome-menus -> redhat-menus -> desktop-file-utils
> 
> The wiki should be updated then, since this is clearly stated on the Package
> Guidelines as a BR.

It *is* a BR. Not directly, but pulled in implicitly by the BR: gtk-sharp2

> > > Also, your creatation of the directories for '%{_datadir}/gnome/help/' &
> > > '%{_datadir}/omf/' is incorrect, and needs to be fixed.  You are taking
> > > ownership of the directories.  Run 'rpm -qf /usr/share/mime' & 
> > > rpm -qf /usr/share/omf' to verify this yourself.
> > 
> > This is deliberate.
> > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-review/2006-June/msg01049.html
> 
> I disagree with this suggestion.  This hasn't been common practice, and should
> be forwarded to FESCO or whoever is in charge of the Packaging Guidelines (spot,
> I believe) before implementing.

Not owning the directory can result in the directory being left behind at
package erase time, since none of the dependencies of this package own it.

On the other hand, having multiple packages owning directories can cause issues
with path-based dependencies.

So there's no clear "winner" about which is the correct approach. As for
precedents, a majority of (for example) perl module packages in Extras share
ownership of directories under /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8 (FC5)

> > > I've noticed that you seem to
> > > have problems with directories ownership, and would suggest working with your
> > > sponsor or a mentor to prevent this from happening on your future packages.
> > 
> > What other directory ownership problems have you noticed?
> >
> 
> Monodoc, where your taking ownership of directories (/usr/lib/mono &
> /usr/lib/mono/gac) which are owned by mono-core.

monodoc is not one of my packages.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.