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

Jesse Keating jkeating at j2solutions.net
Sat Sep 2 16:20:44 UTC 2006

On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 18:14 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 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. 

If anaconda creates it, and nothing else owns it, anaconda should become
the owner, or it should be packaged up by rpm.  If anaconda doesn't
touch it, then it shouldn't be packaged at all.  It would be like the
user created files in /etc/httpd/conf.d/ or any other such thing.  /etc
isn't rpm's playground alone, there could be many files in there not
owned by a package once the system is used for a while.

Jesse Keating RHCE      (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20060902/a45ee7d9/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list