Re: rpms/ettercap/devel ettercap.spec,1.4,1.5

[Michael Schwendt <mschwendt tmp0701 nospam arcor de>]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:16:09 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:

> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 06:51:57 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> 
> >> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 
> >> > Making a file %ghost, when multiple packages use the alternatives
> >> > system for a shared set of paths, would be wrong.
> 
> >> I disagree, I've done it, and it works just fine.  I've advocated that
> >> all alternatives-using-packages (particularly jpackage ones) use this
> >> technique.
> 
> > Now you've got N packages which pretend they own a file/symlink. 
> 
> That's as it should be, imo.  You would rather the file/symlink be unowned?

But sure! The link target does not belong into any package, since it is a
configuration value. E.g.

  $ rpm -qf /etc/alternatives/mta
  file /etc/alternatives/mta is not owned by any package

If packages PKG1 and PKG2 own the link name, none of them owns the link
target. And since the link target is a link itself, only either one can
own the configured file the final link points to. Hence if the final
destination is a file in PKG2, it would be wrong to make PKG1 the owner
of the base link.
 
> > The alternatives symlink is a configuration value and doesn't belong into
> > any package. The admin could also point the symlink to something in
> > /usr/local, and you don't want to remove his customisation when an rpm is
> > uninstalled.
> 
> Stuff done outside of rpm is done by a local admin at their own risk.

Too bad, since the "alternatives" system is a configuration system outside
of RPM: rpm -qf /etc/alternatives/* /var/lib/alternatives/* 
man alternatives