[Fedora-packaging] Re: Fontconfig rules installation guidelines change proposal
nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Thu Oct 16 07:39:56 UTC 2008
Le Mer 15 octobre 2008 22:39, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> Le mercredi 15 octobre 2008 à 15:10 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit :
>>> The idea of having separate conf.avail and conf.d is that sysadmins
>>> 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
>> possible to tell it "if this file/symlink does not exist do not
>> 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
>> this file does not exist and was installed by a previous rpm" to
>> initial deployment. Which starts to be real hairy.
> Well, it is: don't include the symlink in the RPM but create it in
> %post, and
> only if no previous versions of the package were installed ($1 = 0
Yurk. How safe is it WRT package renames? Because we've been renaming
font packages a lot in the past (and I plan another mass rename for
F11, hopefully the last one but I wouldn't bet anything I care about
Really this is being too clever for your own good IMHO.
>> 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
> This can be ok. If it works, we can document it.
>> 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.
> Really? Where does it talk about those kind of stuff?
In conf.avail files are not really user-editable config files (in fact
you don't use config(noreplace) so any package update will stomp on
user modifications). They're more static configuration blocks users
can not change but only activate/desactivate in conf.d via symlinks,
and as such they match the "read-only architecture independent data
files" definition of /usr/share.
That rpmlint complains of %config files without noreplace in /etc is a
pretty strong hint those files are misplaced. In fact one can wonder
what's good is there %config-ing them at all.
IIRC there was a pretty long thread on the subject in fedora-devel in
the last months, but I don't have the time to pull it from archives.
More information about the Fedora-packaging