[Fedora-packaging] Re: one more draft

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:40:30AM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Sunday 23 March 2008, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 10:20:10PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> >
> > > I suppose that's possible (didn't think of that, thanks), but will
> > > lead to more or less fragile config file modifications in
> > > scriptlets.
> >
> > Why fragile? It either checks whether a previous vdr config told vdr
> > to put files there or looks whether /srv/vdr exists.
> 
> Previous config doesn't tell vdr anything, it uses compile time defaults, 

> > If it is a new install then have the user decide where he needs
> > his data being placed in.
> 
> They can already configure it in /etc/sysconfig/vdr.

That's what I mean. Whatever the hardwired defaults at compile time
the /etc/sysconfig/vdr takes precedence. So the package's scripts can
easily autoadjust to whatever situation. For correctness sake (imagine
someone calling vdr manually) the compile time defaults should be w/o
any /srv bits.

> > As said if the data is there leave it there.
> 
> Just in case it wasn't clear, I meant leaving not only the data there but the 
> package and its dir ownerships as is too.

But that would be wrong. One of the main FHS aspects is that a package
should not remove anything (e.g. not own anything) beneath /srv. And
that's what the draft also tried to map into the guidelines.

Just to reiterate: The /srv/vdr folder currently breaks all
/srv/<domain> setups.
-- 
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/20080324/27ac417e/attachment.sig>