On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 18:50 +0200, Jos Vos wrote: > Hi, > > Should configs files of a package be patched to have settings that > make it work more or less out of the box (as far as possible, some > setting like DB access etc. just can't be filled in in advance)? > > I came across a package that defines to use "nogroup" in its config > file as effective group (Fedora has no "nogroup", but has group "nobody") > and defines to put a pid file in /var/run (which fails, as it appears to > do that as nobody/nobody when running). > > Should this config file have been patched to use "nobody" as group and > should the package (for example) include a package-specific directory > below /var/run to put its own pid file in (and patch the config file > to use this directory for pid files)? > > Just wondering if it is worth filing bugs against this package > because of the above (easy to solve) issues... I think the problem is twofold: if the package as shipped requires the existence of a particular group, it's the responsibility of the packager to ensure that the group exists on the system. So as part of the install scripts (probably in %pre) you need to create the group on the system. That said, it would be best to work with upstream to add a configure option to select the group most appropriate for each platform.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel