[Fedora-packaging] Re: Fontconfig rules installation guidelines change proposal
nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Wed Oct 15 20:34:16 UTC 2008
Le mercredi 15 octobre 2008 à 15:10 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
conf.avail and conf.dyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
> Hi Nicolas,
Thank you for reviewing it,
> I like the direction of it.
> The idea of having separate conf.avail and conf.d is that sysadmins can
> symlink/unlink entries into conf.d to enable/disable configuration for their
> system. This would only work if upgrading fontconfig/fonts rpms does not
> reinstate the unlinked symlink. However, last time I checked this was not
> working correctly. Can you check this first?
I didn't write it in the wiki, but as far as I understand rpm it is not
possible to tell it "if this file/symlink does not exist do not install
it". So this bit of conf.avail/conf.d design will never work on rpm
systems. And even if it worked, what you'd actually need would be "if
this file does not exist and was installed by a previous rpm" to handle
initial deployment. Which starts to be real hairy. (more generally
treating absence of an item as disabling this item is a broken computer
However (someone please check this) it's probably possible to disable an
entry permanently by creating a symlink with the same name pointing
somewhere else (how does fontconfig reacts to /dev/null symlinks or
symlinks pointing to empty files)? So having a repository of
pre-deployed config snippets is fine with me.
Also (and this bit is traced on the wiki) as I understand the
FHS /etc/.../conf.avail is a complete no-go and should be moved
to /usr/share/something if we want to be clean. And that
before /etc/.../conf.avail is duplicated in many packages.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
More information about the Fedora-packaging