On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 13:22 -0500, seth vidal wrote: > On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 13:21 -0500, James Antill wrote: > > On Sat, 2009-01-31 at 00:36 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > > > On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > > > > > > > Jesse Keating píše v Pá 30. 01. 2009 v 13:22 -0800: > > > >> Why not fail the build if unowned directories are found, just like we do > > > >> for unowned files? That way you catch it at build time before you try > > > >> and do something useful with the build. > > > > How do we determine which directory is unowned and which is provided by > > > > a dependency? If we don't, every package would have to own /usr. > > > > > > It'd be possible to turn the topmost unowned directory into a file (well, > > > directory) dependency. Either at build time, which would cause a big pile > > > of new file dependencies in the metadata, or rpm could generate them at > > > runtime. The problem with runtime generated dependencies is just that yum > > > & the like wouldn't be able to resolve them without fairly big changes. > > > > It'd be painful to have everything have a "Requires: /usr" (or > > whatever) as it would make filelists mandatory for every update ... but > > it would just work, with yum. > > Not that I'd suggest this but we _could_ add dirs to the primary > filelist.... I'm not sure that'd work well as you can't tell from just the path whether it's a file or a dir. Much better to have something like dir(/usr) provides/requires, this should then also work with apt-rpm/smart/whatever. But that could be stage2, if we wanted to try it ... it still might bloat the primary a bit, but maybe not much. -- James Antill - james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "I'd just like to see a realistic approach to updates via packages." -- Les Mikesell -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
