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

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Sat Sep 2 16:14:57 UTC 2006

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 12:05:51PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 18:03 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Isn't this handled in some guidelines? If not shouldn't it?
> I thought we had a rule about creating files in %post or whatnot and not
> owning them.  I could be wrong, but I check for that when I review
> packages.  IMHO any file a package creates on the file system at install
> time should be owned or ghosted by that package.

The file is not created by %post. Currently it is created by anaconda,
which is a remnant of old times (a safety measure of making sure rpm
behaves multilib).

The target would be for anaconda to not have to touch /etc/rpm/config
at all leaving it completely to the user's discretion. But still that
file is unowned.
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/20060902/3fa38302/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list