On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 10:10:54AM -0400, John Dennis wrote: > > I don't think %post scripts should go moving random user-controlled > > files around nor munging configurations because of this change. > > Fair enough, I think that is a valid policy. It doesn't address > Warren's concern with things mysterously breaking on upgrade, > that should not be taken lightly. From past experience with > moving directories people will be upset and some will be quite > vocal with their displeasure. However, at the moment I don't > think we have robust solution, only a partial solution. It > would be wonderful if rpm could issue warning messages that > would be displayed during an anaconda install but I don't > think we have that feature do we? Actually: I had presumed that /usr/share/ssl would become a symlink, but it isn't. So what will break? If a %config(noreplace) config file references an SSL certificate in /usr/share/ssl/* which is not under package management, then that should be fine over an upgrade, since both the cert and the config file will remain intact. (that's the case for mod_ssl, at least) If you have a package-managed SSL certificate in /usr/share/ssl which is considered as throw-away and have it %ghosted (though this seems pretty questionable behaviour), you can make upgrades work by marking the config file which references it as %config-not-noreplace for FC4 final. joe
