[Fedora-packaging] review guidelines vs packaging guidelines

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Thu Aug 23 09:38:04 UTC 2007

Le Ven 17 août 2007 19:16, Matthias Clasen a écrit :
> The review guidelines have this:
> - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
> not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package
> which does create that directory. The exception to this are
> directories
> listed explicitly in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard
> (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html), as it is safe to
> assume
> that those directories exist.

> I think the shortened version in the review guidelines is misleading
> and
> causes us to err on the side of adding unwanted dependencies just for
> directory ownership reasons. Can we have it changed to mention the
> furhter exceptions that are discussed in the packaging guidelines ?

IMHO the packaging guidelines are too lax. The harder stance in review
guidelines helped clean up a lot of historical directory ownership
mess no one was looking at.

In particular I object to :

> Another exception for directory ownership in packages is when there is
> no clear dependency hierarchy.

In that case directories should be created by generic packages like
filesystem (not necessarily the filesystem package itseld). There's
just no excuse for installing objects with no identified security
policy on user systems.

Nicolas Mailhot

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list