[Fedora-packaging] review guidelines vs packaging guidelines

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Thu Aug 23 16:11:10 UTC 2007

Hash: SHA1

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Jeu 23 août 2007 15:34, Patrice Dumas a écrit :
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 01:14:45PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>> Le Jeu 23 août 2007 12:58, Patrice Dumas a écrit :
>>>> 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.
>>> I'm not so sure. The lax guidelines are more ambiguous, at no time
>>> do
>>> they clearly say "every directory must be owned" (with single or
>>> multiple owners). They say "the rule of thumb is everything must be
>> Indeed. It would be much more clearer if there was, in addition to all
>> the explanations, a simple sentence saying, maybe as a conclusion of
>> all
>> the examples:
>> "In any case there should never be any unowned directory appearing
>> after
>> a package uninstall."
> Who can add this ?
New clarified language.  Packaging Guidelines:
In general, your package should own all of the directories that it
creates but the situation is more complex than in the case of files
because many packages put files into the same directories. 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 times when you should own more than 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.
[snip examples]

In any case, there should never be any unowned directories after a
package is uninstalled from the system.

The one change and one addition are meant to clarify that owning more
directories can be permissible but owning less is not.

Package Review Guidelines:
- - 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.  Refer to the
[Packaging/Guidelines#FileAndDirectoryOwnership Guidelines] for examples.

I think the confusion in the Review Guidelines is over the extra wording
which only lists exceptions for FHS directories:
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.

Directing the reader to the Guidelines for complete details seems better.

Matthias, does this address your concerns?

- -Toshio
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list