[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Directory ownership guidelines

mån 2009-03-23 klockan 23:38 +0900 skrev Mamoru Tasaka:
> Mattias Ellert wrote, at 03/23/2009 11:31 PM +9:00:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > It was suggested to me to bring this issue to this list.
> > 
> > The packaging guidelines says that a package should not own a directory
> > that is owned by a package on which it depends.
> > 
> > The packaging guidelines also says that packages should own all
> > directories needed in order not to leave orphaned directories after a
> > package de-installation.
> > 
> > The way rpm/yum currently works these guidelines are contradicting and
> > you must choose which one to implement in your packaging.
> > 
> > My question is - is this a bug in yum/rpm, or a flaw in the packaging
> > guidelines?
> I guess this is a bug in rpm. As far as I am correct current Fedora packaging
> guidelines assume this is properly handled by rpm.
> Actually I filed bug 490975 and am waiting for comments from rpm maintainers.
> Regards,
> Mamoru

I added my test case to your existing bug report.

Considering that this bug is the cause for thousands of packages
violating the packaging guidelines, should the severity/priority of the
bug be raised? Should it be made a blocker?


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]