Le Lun 2 février 2009 10:08, Michael Schwendt a écrit : > No, the problem is not worse enough anymore, since RPM at least uses a > proper umask since F9. Since then it has become more interesting to > examine unowned dirs which are caused by other packaging mistakes > (such as misplaced files, missing sub-pkg deps). BTW, I could simplify the multi-font spec template a lot if having multiple subpackages own the same font directory was accepted. Currently one of the major quirks many font packagers fail on is the way we try very hard to have a single canonical owner of the common font deployment directory for the srpm. (IIRC people wanted queries on directory ownership to return a single package) -- Nicolas Mailhot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
