rpms/gnumeric/FC-4 gnumeric.spec,1.3,1.4

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:07:02 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

> Le lundi 24 octobre 2005 à 12:28 +0200, Michael Schwendt a écrit :
> 
> > Well, I prefer semantic correctness of dependencies
> 
> Michael, semantic correctness is worth nothing to the people who
> actually use the packages. A working system is. Plus you can not
> advocate correctness on the points you care about, and ignore it on the
> points you don't.
>
> I'll also point out there are not so many software bits like gnumeric
> dating from Miguel's time, so if you won't do the mc directory dep for
> gnumeric you won't do it anywhere else, and twin ownership of this dir
> is more than acceptable practically.

gnumeric not requiring mc _just works_. gnumeric requiring mc causes users
to raise questions about dependency bloat. gnumeric owning a directory
which belongs to a different package, is wrong. Twin ownership of files
or directories is wrong.  You want a _single_ package to specify file
ownership and access privileges, regardless of whether this is a
corner-case or not. You want RPM database queries to not return ambigous
results. Nobody has commented on my /usr/share/aclocal example yet.
Well, go ahead and drive directory ownership and sub-package creation to
the level of pedantry, without real benefit.