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=478504 --- Comment #19 from Ant Bryan <anthonybr...@gmail.com> 2009-01-12 16:48:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > (In reply to comment #7) > > > As you can see these three directories are already owned by epiphany and > > > there > > > should not be duplicate dir ownerships as outlined in > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership > > > So usually we would just own the files, not the dirs with > > > %{_libdir}/epiphany/2.22/extensions/py* > > > > I'm using Fedora 10, which has Epiphany 2.24. So I used > > > > %{_libdir}/epiphany/*/extensions/gget* > > > > Is that ok? > > No. It would be ok if you followed the 'no duplicate directory ownership' > rule, > but in this case we cannot use it, because it will leave unowned dirs behind. > It's better if two packages own the a dir than no package. > > So you should use > %{_libdir}/epiphany/*/ Ok. > > > The problem is: If epiphany gets updated from 2.22 to 2.23 the three > > > directories will become unowned. > > > > What do I need to do? Just the rebuilds you mention below? > > With the line you are using now you would need to do a rebuild a rebuild in > time with epiphany, but _after_ it has been pushed out, because you are > building against it. The users would have to install your update in the same > rpm transaction as the epiphany update and in the correct order. You see: This > is nearly impossible, that's why the 'no duplicate ownership' model doesn't > work here. > I have to admit that this is a very special case, but you can take it as a > chance to learn something about packaging. ;) Maybe we can clean this up with > a > symlink without version, but this would need to be done in the epiphany > package. Maybe I should have just disabled the epiphany-extension :) Nah, this is interesting. > %{_sysconfdir}/gconf/schemas/gget.schemas should not be marked as %config > because gconf schemas are not meant to be changed by users and need to get > replaced on updates. No need to update your package now, wait for the review > and then fix all issues in one release. Ok, removed the %config there. > Sorry I did not manage to do the review today, but I will tomorrow. No rush! -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review