[Bug 177580] Review Request: lat (LDAP Administration Tool)

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: lat  (LDAP Administration Tool)


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177580





------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org  2006-06-17 12:48 EST -------
(In reply to comment #47)
> (In reply to comment #46)
> > (In reply to comment #45)
> >http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-review/2006-June/msg01049.html
> > > 
> > > I disagree with this suggestion.  This hasn't been common practice, and should
> > > be forwarded to FESCO or whoever is in charge of the Packaging Guidelines
(spot,
> > > I believe) before implementing.
> > 
> > Not owning the directory can result in the directory being left behind at
> > package erase time, since none of the dependencies of this package own it.
> > 
> > On the other hand, having multiple packages owning directories can cause issues
> > with path-based dependencies.
> > 
> > So there's no clear "winner" about which is the correct approach. As for
> > precedents, a majority of (for example) perl module packages in Extras share
> > ownership of directories under /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8 (FC5)
> > 
> 
> Regardless, this should be to be discussed by FESCO or the Packaging Guideline
> group before implementing, since this has not been the common practice.  Was
> this something that the Perl SIG came up with?

It's been common practice for perl modules for a long time, and it's not really
perl-specific (perl modules just provide a good set of examples). Another good
example is to look at the ownership of /usr/share/pixmaps.

What the guidelines say is:

  Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
  packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be
  installed should own the files or directories that other packages may
  rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should
  ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by
  the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good
  reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then
  please present that at package review time.

Clearly this package is violating the first sentence there. However, following
the rule of thumb, it is quite possible for this package to be the first one to
own the directories you have an issue with, if it is installed on a gnome-free
system for example. The guideline goes on to say that the issue can be discussed
at package review time, and in fact in this case the request to add ownership of
those directories came from the reviewer rather than from me (though I agreed
that it was the right thing to do).


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.