[Fedora-packaging] Ownership of /usr/share/gnome/help

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 12:08 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>>> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> writes:
>> TK> yelp owns it.  There's a question of whether packages which have
>> TK> gnome help should Require yelp or not.
>>
>> What about a package that _only_ provides gnome help?  The
>> system-config-* packages have split out their documentation and I'm
>> reviewing the new packages, but am stuck on this issue.
>>
>> TK> If yelp is not Required, then filesystem should own
>> TK> /usr/share/gnome/help.  If yelp is required, the filesystem
>> TK> ownership will do no harm.
>>
>> This would imply that any package other than yelp or filesystem which
>> owns /usr/share/gnome/help has a bug, I guess.  More to file.
> 
> Filing more bugs does not really help improve this situation. 

What situation precisely?  The passage quoted implicates adding
/usr/share/gnome/help to the filesystem package and then changing
individual packages to not own /usr/share/gnome/help as filesystem would
then own it.  That does seem like an improvement over the current situation.

I have a feeling you're thinking of something more meta, though.

> Fixing rpm to handle directories sensibly would.
> 
This is probably something you need to talk to the rpm maintainers
about.  They've been making lots of changes to rpm recently.  If you
have a proposal, they'll be able to tell us if it's something that's
doable in the continued rpm cleanup or something that goes too deeply
into what rpm is.

-Toshio

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20081215/746f5b97/attachment.sig>