[Fedora-packaging] Using alternatives

[Patrice Dumas]

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 09:51:32PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> While reviewing a package, I stumbled across the use of alternatives
> and found out it's not regulated in any way in Fedora. So far, I've
> encountered three ways of handling the symlinks that are set up using
> alternatives:
> 1. some packages have Provides: for them (like cups or postfix),

Not all files are provided, only 
/usr/bin/mailq  
/usr/bin/newaliases  
/usr/bin/rmail  
/usr/sbin/sendmail  
while man pages are not provided. I think it is right like this.

> 2. some don't own those files at all (like lam or scim),
> 3. some %ghost them.
> 
> All seem to work, but in case of 2. it's not possible to find out which
> packages own/provide those files using rpm -qf, thus I consider it an
> inferior solution.

I don't think it is that important. Having that right would mean
providing all the files in alternatives which could make a lot. In my
opinion the provided files  should be those that make sense to have as
provides (or as yum install /usr/..../file).

> Personally, I'm leaning towards 1., but I don't see any disadvantages
> in 3., either. Comments?

Doesn't %ghost leads to the file being removed?

> Having said that, I'm going to write up a guideline to cover that. I expect
> to have a presentable draft ready in a week or two.

I don't think a guideline is needed, except if there are specific
pitfalls. Some advices may be nice, though. I remember that I asked for 
some when I first got interested in fedora.

--
Pat