[Fedora-packaging] Re: Should packages really own their config files???
jorton at redhat.com
Mon Sep 4 13:55:25 UTC 2006
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 03:47:43PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 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.
I don't know how a ghosted noreplace file would be handled actually.
Would an --erase always remove such a file? That is not really
Jesse: yes, generating the files at first invocation would be a good
idea. But I don't think it makes a difference *when* the file is
generated w.r.t. the question of whether the package should own it
More information about the Fedora-packaging