umask package policy

[Enrico Scholz]

ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville Skyttä) writes:

>> >> +1, although I thought that already is a policy at least in Extras.
>> >> But not _all_ directories it installs, only those that are not
>> >> owned by its prerequisite packages.
>> 
>> Exactly; and to nitpick: simple 'Requires:' do not suffice, but
>> 'Requires(pre):' (and Requires(postun): ones) are needed.
>
> Using context marked dependencies like Requires(pre) to "solve" this is
> abuse, please don't do that.

Why abuse? There is no other way to say 'I require directory /foo before
my files will be installed' for a package. rpm could introduce a special
'filesystem' classifier so that the two 'Requires(pre|postun)' can be
replaced by a single one. But that's not backward compatible and will
probably never be implemented.


> Plain Requires is fine as long as there are no dependency loops
> involved.

Why should I trust in some preconditions which can never be guaranted
instead of enforcing the correct behavior?




Enrico
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 476 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20050524/d1b0c4e7/attachment.sig>