[Fedora-packaging] Re: Should packages really own their config files???

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 10:59:55PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 16:00 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 12:14:49PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > > I argued for such a rule, but others pointed out examples where this is
> > > not always/generally a good idea, so the proposal did not have the
> > > support to pass.
> > 
> > Were the examples for certificate/ssh keys only? I don't really meant
> > these with "config files". Are there any arguments against owning
> > config files but certifcates/ssh keys?
> 
> I don't recall anything except certificates.  The log of that meeting is
> here:
>   http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/IRCLog20060727
> 
> Relevant timeframe: (09:33:08) - (09:59:24)

Thanks!

There isn't much in there which hasn't been said in this thread, I
think. It's mostly about not wanting to accidentially remove
certificates or other sensitive auto-generated key material and that
can be handled fine (see my reply to Joe).

And it also didn't fail on passing, it failed on available time in the
session - looks like most people were not rejecting the idea of having
config files (or other generated files) owned by the package, if it
doesn't do harm.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20060905/1db843c5/attachment.sig>