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

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Mon Oct 24 13:04:25 UTC 2005


Le lundi 24 octobre 2005 à 14:04 +0200, Michael Schwendt a écrit :
> 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. 

But *works*.
The problem with all your arguments is you mingle absolutes
"correctness", "wrong" with practical considerations "works", "bloat".
Choose your ground (ideal or practical) and stick to it. If you want to
push absolutes, you can't invoke practical considerations. If you accept
practicalities, you can't ignore them because of absolutes.

The practical view is to choose whatever solution works best with the
least effort for everyone, and that may include multiple dir ownership
even if it's not the "right" solution.

The ideal "correct" view is to use "correct" deps everywhere, and that
does mean putting a dep on /usr/share/mc in packages that use this dir.

So far you've changed ground whenever it suited you, as a packager I'm
not too interested in the ideal view, so if you want to convince me not
to support twin ownership of this directory please give us an actual
scenario using this particular directory where twin ownership will cause
harm enough to justify leaving dangling directories.

And "clear directory ownership for plugins" does not count because
that's exactly what these two files are about.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20051024/bb61a8d2/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list