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

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Mon Sep 4 14:00:35 UTC 2006

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 12:14:49PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, 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.
> 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?
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/c1e2e551/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list