[Bug 220265] Many unowned directories in /usr/share/man

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=220265


Axel Thimm <axel.thimm at atrpms.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |axel.thimm at atrpms.net

Bug 220265 depends on bug 510360, which changed state.

Bug 510360 Summary: Unowned directories in hunspell-1.2.8-4.fc11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510360

           What    |Old Value                   |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|                            |ERRATA
             Status|MODIFIED                    |CLOSED



--- Comment #24 from Axel Thimm <axel.thimm at atrpms.net>  2009-07-27 15:31:29 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> I'm not really sure whether jwhois really should own /usr/share/man/sv/man1

I agree, the same would need to be owned by fakeroot, dcraw and even
shadow-utils as well.

> and I'm not sure, whether this is conform to the packaging guidelines as well.  

(In reply to comment #22)
> Robert: Packaging guideline is to: "Own all directories you create but none of
> the directories of packages you depend on. Additionally no package in Fedora
> should ever share ownership with any of the files owned by the filesystem or
> man package."
> As filesystem and man-pages are not going to own those dirs, packages which do
> create those directories(and use them for their files) should own them.

So a packager that encounters a man path that is unowned by man/filesystem asks
repoquery as to --whatprovides this path and ends up with jwhois, fakeroot or
some other package. If he reads the guidelines to the letter instead of
coowning this man path he might as well just depend on one of these packages
...

What I'm trying to say is that the guidelines are there to explain how to
package up things and not how to create strange scenarios. The next packager
with /usr/share/man/sv/man1 will also not know what to do and will probably do
the wrong thing (whatever the right thing is).

I think either a locale is broken, so it is the packager's responsibility to
remove or adjust the locale of the man page, or it needs to be owned by man.

Ownership of directories means that the contents are related to the owner, and
the man pages of say

dcraw-8.91-1.fc11.x86_64
fakeroot-1.12.2-21.fc11.x86_64
jwhois-4.0-13.fc11.x86_64
shadow-utils-4.1.2-13.fc11.x86_64

that suddenly are required to own all subdirs from /usr/share/man/sv/ are
completely unrelated to each other.

Ivana, please reconsider, I understand that you feel like this "pollutes" your
package with folders you don't directly need, but the other solution is to
pollute many more packages with he same, and if feels much uncleaner to do so
in not man related packages. And the above example shows that the same stray
ownership is being multiplied by four (dcraw, fakeroot, jwhois and shadow-utils
now need to own the dirs of the subtree below /usr/share/man/sv/).

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.