On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 19:31 +0200, Martin Erik Werner wrote: > Hello, > I have a couple of packaging questions for a new package, the FPS game > redeclipse[0], which are currently in testing[1]. > > 1. > I have three resulting binary packages {redeclipse, redeclipse-server, > redeclipse-data} where redeclipse depends on redeclipse-data as the only > inter-dependency. (Splitting -data into a separate source package is a > future todo item...) > > Currently all packages place files in %{_libexecdir}/%{name}/ (client > binary, server binary, and a symlink to the data dir). > > In this case, should only the -server and -data packages own this > directory, or would it be more appropriate if all three owned it? > > 2. > I was thinking of moving the symlink from the -data package to the > client ("redeclipse") package, which would mean that unless the -data > dependency is installed, there would be a broken symlink, is this > something that's acceptable? Or need symlinks be unbroken within a > single package regardless of dependencies? > > 3. > redeclipse is currently pushed as an update to testing[1] (not in stable > yet), and this version includes the unowned directory > %{_libexecdir}/%{name}/ (which I discovered recently). > > What would be my course of action with regards to the f17 update? Should > I abort it and push a new one (and go through the review process?), or > should I let it go and fix this in a subsequent update; how critical are > unowned dirs like this? > > > Thanks. [0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800930 [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/redeclipse-1.2-9.fc17 Whoops forgot those :) -- Martin Erik Werner <martinerikwerner@xxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel