On 2015-10-16, Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > only rpm-mpi-hooks requires rpm-build for directory ownership, while > javapackages-tools takes the route of owning the directory. However, I'd > rather rpm-mpi-hooks not require rpm-build as it's not really necessary other > than for this directory. The simple thing I think would be for rpm to own the > directory. Does that seem reasonable? > If you move the directory from rpm-build to rpm, then all the packages should require rpm instead of rpm-build. But that contradicts your wish "I'd rather rpm-mpi-hooks not require rpm-build as it's not really necessary other than for this directory". rpm-mpi-hooks does not need rpm more or less than it needs rpm-build, does it? If the only reason for the dependency is the ownership, then co-owning the directory as javapackages-tools does is the right way. But the directory hosts dependency generators executed by rpmbuild. Not by rpm. Moving the ownership from rpm-build to rpm sounds semantically wrong. One can perceive the package packages as rpm-build plugins. Having the dependency on rpm-build does not look wrong in the end. -- Petr -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
