[Fedora-packaging] Re: Directory draft (was Re: Triggers just to avoid unowned directories?)
a.badger at gmail.com
Wed Sep 2 16:12:20 UTC 2009
On 09/02/2009 08:47 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silvanus at gmail.com) said:
>>>> Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to
>>>> move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base
>>>> filesystem package.
>>> Then the guidelines should be fixed to create less confusion over the
>> Another precedence is with bash-completion -- the consensus is for
>> packages that provide completion scripts to own /etc/bash_completion.d
> OK, I've written up the following, which should be more clear:
Section 1.3 Optional functoinality is a special case of Section 1.5
Common directory without one requiring the other. I'd combine them like
Multiple packages have files in a common directory but none of them
needs to require the others.
bash-completion owns the /etc/bash_completion.d directory and uses the
files placed in there to configure itself
git places files into /etc/bash_completion.d
bzr places files into /etc/bash_completion.d
Solution: Both the git and bzr packages should own the
/etc/bash_completion.d directory as bash-completion is optional
functionality and the installation of git or bzr should not force the
installation of bash-completion.
And one more idea to throw out there: How sacred is filesystem? How
costly are adding new directories to it? For something like
/etc/prelink.conf.d, adding to filesystem seems like the preferred
option. If there's little cost involved, adding to filesystem for
things like /etc/bash_completion.d also seems like the preferred
solution. If there's no reason we shouldn't be expanding filesystem,
I'd list that as an option in the directory draft as well.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Fedora-packaging