[Fedora-packaging] Packaging clarification regarding bash-completion scripts

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Wed Feb 25 01:28:15 UTC 2009

Michel Salim wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Florian Festi <ffesti at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> For those cases, 2 approaches exist:
>>> 1) let all packages which provide such a plugin own the directory, they
>>> install a plugin/add-on to (This is the approach, which is being applied for
>>> packaging perl-modules)
>>> This approach, however is only functional when all packages providing such
>>> "plugins/add-ons" obey such a convention.
>>> 2) split out the plugin/add-on package into a separate package and let
>>> this spit-out package depend on the "base-package".
>> There is a third possible approach:
>> Split out the plugin dir into a separate package and let
>> plugin/add-on packages depend on it.
> That is actually a very good idea.
I dislike this idea.

It leads to "one dir/file per package" packages and is functionally 
equivalent 1).

> That way, you can even script the
> following query: "which functionality do I have plugins for?" by doing
> rpm -qa \*-filesystem
> or whichever common naming convention we settle on.

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list