On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 10:23 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 18:06 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > Gianluca Sforna wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Miloslav Trmač <mitr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> Please review use of %config without noreplace in your packages, and add
> > >> noreplace if appropriate. The list of affected packages is below.
> > > <snip>
> > >> giallu alleyoop
> > >
> > > this is because of:
> > > %config %{_sysconfdir}/gconf/schemas/*.schemas
> > >
> > > I checked other packages and it seems they are not marking with
> > > %config the files in /etc/gconf/schemas.
> > >
> > > So, may I safely drop this?
> >
> > Yes, gconf schemas are data, not %config.
> >
> > > In that case, maybe rpmlint should grow a rule to not return:
> > > alleyoop.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/alleyoop.schemas
> > > on the resulting rpm?
> >
> > File a bug and let the rpmlint maintainers see what they think.
>
> Isn't the bug more likely in gconf? If these are data they should not be
> in /etc but /usr (according to FHS).
>
> I note that openSUSE has a feature request for this:
>
> https://features.opensuse.org/305318
>
> which claims that Debian does it already. What's upstream's take on
> this?
We may reopen this discussion upstream after 2.26, and see if we can
achieve some harmonization of GConf paths between distros.
So far, we have not taken this up (moving schemas from /etc to /usr),
since it is a change that affects many packages, without any tangible
benefits. Unless you want to count an FHS checkbox or 'silent rpmlint'
as a benefit that warrants non-trivial (it is not just file lists, but %
post/%pre/%preun scripts too) changes in tons of packages...
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
