Re: rpm expectations/conventions

[Jeff Johnson <n3npq jbj gmail com>]

On Dec 9, 2006, at 2:08 AM, Bob Proulx wrote:

> Jeff Johnson wrote:
> > marks wrote:
> > > When installing the rpm, is it expected that every file installed
> > > or generated when running "rpm -i" be owned (rpm -qf) by the
> > > package?
> >
> > In general, yes, almost all files should come from the package, not
> > side effects.
>
> Mostly agreed.  I think all files should be packaged.  But in order to
> handle configuration files specifically I do often leave files from
> /etc/* unpackaged and managed manually in the scripts.  But generally
> speaking all files should be packaged.  After an installation
> everything should verify cleanly (i.e. that rpm --verify should be
> clean).

FWIW, rpm has a --noconfigs option that disables install files marked  
%config.

The original idea was to implement a means to install custom  
configuration.

The mechanism adds both a Provides: and a Requires: in the same
package on "config(N) = E:V-R".

When --noconfigs (or its internal equivalent RPMTAG_FLAG_NOCONFLICTS)
was specified, then
	Provides: config(N) = E:V-R
would be ignored, exposing
	Requires: config(N) = E:V-R
to depsolvers, who could then supply a package containing the custom
configuration specific to that package depending on context .

Last I checked --noconfigs was functional, the operation of ignoring the
Provides: thereby exposing
	Requires: config(N) = E:V-R
could be completed in an afternoon (assuming some depsolver was prepared
to supply a package with custom configuration).

73 de Jeff