[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Fedora-packaging] review guidelines vs packaging guidelines



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stepan Kasal wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:11:10AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> New clarified language.  Packaging Guidelines:
>> '''
>> In general, your package should own all of the directories that it
>> creates but the situation is more complex than in the case of files
>> because many packages put files into the same directories.
> 
> the second half of the sentence really confuses me.
> I suggest to put period after "creates".
> 
>> The rule of
>> thumb is that your package should own all of the directories it creates
> 
> repeated again?
> 
>> except those owned by packages which your package depends on.
> 
> ok
> 
>> *However, there are times when you should own more than this.*
> 
> Again, this puzzles me.  I would say:
> "In certain situations, a directory may be owned by two packages.
> Typically, more than one package has files in a common directory, but
> none of them requires another of them--in that case, each of them
> shall own the directory."
> 
>> If the directory
>> hierarchy your package is located in may change due to updates of
>> packages you depend on, then you need to take care to own those pieces
>> of the hierarchy.
> 
> This might be correct, but I'm not able to decipher it; perhaps I
> have not encountered such a situation yet.
> 
>> [snip examples]
>>
>> In any case, there should never be any unowned directories after a
>> package is uninstalled from the system.
> 
> Again, I would rephrase. Something like:
> "In any case, a system may never contain a file owned by an installed
> package whoch would lay below an unowned directory.
> (That's because such a directory would remain on the system after the
> corresponding package has been removed.)"

I didn't want to tear up the existing guidelines more than necessary.
But I agree that the wording leaves something to be desired.  How about:

'''
Directory ownership is a little more complex than file ownership.
Although the rule of thumb is the same: own all the directories you
create but none of the directories of packages you depend on, there are
several instances where it's desirable for multiple packages to own a
directory.  Examples of this are:

1) The package you depend on to provide a directory may choose to own a
different directory in a later version and your package will run
unmodified with that later version.
[perl module example here]

2) Multiple packages have files in a common directory but none of them
requires others.
[hierarchy example here]

In all cases we are guarding against unowned directories being present
on a system.  Unowned directories are affected by the umask of the user
installing the package and thus can be a security risk or lead to
packages which won't run.
'''

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGzct8X6yAic2E7kgRAqC3AJ9GPui1N01ZhbfkK1UpQ9apCMnzeQCeL57r
5HQXjwmWXl4xJgt224Vci+I=
=3ygx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]