[Fedora-packaging] Using alternatives

[Rex Dieter]

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

My preference in order is: 3, 1, 2.  2 is least desirable, imo, mostly 
because abhor unowned files.

-- Rex