[Fedora-packaging] review guidelines vs packaging guidelines

Patrice Dumas pertusus at free.fr
Thu Aug 23 10:58:36 UTC 2007

On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 12:49:01PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> When two packages share a directory sure it's not worth creating a
> separate package just for this directory. What I was suggesting was
> more like the games SIG collecting all the stray directories in a
> filesystem-games package, same for the perl SIG, etc Certainly there
> is a level at which you can create useful filesystem packages without
> falling in the whole-repository or single-directory package traps.


> That being said multiple ownership is compliant with the strict
> guidelines version, what I object to is no ownership as suggested by
> the lax variant.

Ok, I didn't understood it that way. But it isn't true, the guidelines
are setup such that having no ownership of a directory is impossible.

"The rule of thumb is that your package should own all of the
directories it creates except those owned by packages which your package
depends on. However, there are exceptions to this. If the directory
hierarchy your package is located in may change due to updates of
packages you depend on, then you need to take care to own those pieces
of the hierarchy."

"Neither package depends on the other one. Neither package depends on
any other package which owns the /usr/share/Foo/Animal/ directory. In
this case, each package must own the /usr/share/Foo/Animal/ directory."


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list