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

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Mon Sep 4 13:47:43 UTC 2006

On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 02:40:16PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 08:45:06PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > I'd be interested in seeing examples of cases where creating files in 
> > %post that are not owned by %files would be wanted. I can't think of
> > any.
> With httpd we auto-generate a unique SSL certificate in %post 
> (/etc/pki/tls/localhost.crt et al; some other packages are similar 
> IIRC).  I don't think it would be correct to have those generated files 
> %files-owned by the package in any way.

I wouldn't consider certificates config files anyway. although one
should think about ownership over them, too. What's wrong with
%ghost %config(noreplace) them? Upgrades won't touch them.
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/20060904/4692ef42/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list