Op zondag 13 januari 2013 13:26:51 schreef Colin Guthrie: [...] > Ghosting achieves very little in this case. Does xen automatically > create those directories happily without the need for tmpfiles? If so > I'd personally not package them at all (as it just continues to show up > in the list generated by the urpmf command listed earlier as a false > positive). > > While ghosting does have the advantage that rpm -qf will return sort of > valid results, it does make this transition period more difficult as it > would mean our "list of packages" would never get smaller. > > I'm also not totally convinced that the rpm -qf use case is benefitial > enough to keep package %files+%ghosts synced with tmpfiles contents, > especially as the tmpfiles become part of the upstream package. > > If it could somehow become automated (i.e. via a packaging script) then > I'd be happy to support that. > > So, question. Does xen actually work? There appears to be no tmpfiles in > it and thus I don't see what creates those folders unless xen does it > internally (i.e. like gdm does). > > Can you confirm it's OK without tmpfiles and I'll manually filter it out > of my urpmf command. If you also feel there is no real point in ghosting > here specifically and not in any of the other packages, please do remove > the ghosts as it'll save that manual filtering.
thanks, i'll take this under advisement