I need some advice for a package review I'm doing. The package owns all the directories from /usr/share/icons/hicolor down to /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, where it stores its icons. When I objected that these directories were already owned by hicolor-icon-theme, the packager said: "This package does not require hicolor-icon-theme neither implicit nor explecit. Acourding to the Package guidlines (The directory is owned by a package which is not required for your package to function) this package must own these directories." [sic] On my system, with lots of icon-using packages installed, /usr/share/icons/hicolor is owned by 3 packages: hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos, and setroubleshoot, so there is precedent to back up the packager in this case. On the other hand, there are gobs of packages with icons below that directory that do NOT own /usr/share/icons/hicolor. I haven't been able to find anything about this issue in the packaging guidelines; https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache doesn't address this issue. Are the fedora-logos and setroubleshoot packages doing it the right way, and other icon-installing packages need to be fixed? Are they doing it the wrong way, and should be fixed themselves? Does ownership of that directory depend on some other feature of the package? Thanks, -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
