[Fedora-packaging] Re: Too many unowned directories

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Wed Feb 4 21:48:57 UTC 2009

Just to be clear: the directory ownership page says something like "if
you have multiple packages that use the same directory and do not depend
on a common package that owns it they can all own this directory in

But with fonts we have cases where
1. the common package exists for other reasons, or
2  it's only there to own the common directory.

In case 2. the guidelines clearly allow dropping common and using
multiple ownership. My problem is case 1.: is it ok for each subpackage
to own the directory it installs fonts to, even though it depends on a
common package that already owns it for other reasons (for example, to
put core fonts indexes in it)?

Because making the font subpackage macro auto-own the font dir in all
cases is trivial, would simplify the templates and avoid packaging
errors, but detecting the presence of a common subpackage to avoid the
auto-owning in that case is *not* trivial at all.

NB: in all this discussion the "common" subpackage is created from the
same srpm and never shared with subpackages from another srpm

Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20090204/3824673b/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list