[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 bdpepple at ameritech.net  2006-06-17 12:06 EST -------
(In reply to comment #46)
> (In reply to comment #45)
>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)
> 

Regardless, this should be to be discussed by FESCO or the Packaging Guideline
group before implementing, since this has not been the common practice.  Was
this something that the Perl SIG came up with?

> > > 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.
> 

Your right, wrong Paul.  Since this was a mono app, I assumed you were Paul
Johnson.  My bad.

-- 
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.