On 10/16/2015 11:06 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Various packages now install files into /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs for use when > building rpms. Currently that directory is owned by: > > rpm-build-4.13.0-0.rc1.4.fc23.x86_64 > javapackages-tools-4.6.0-6.fc23.noarch > > Of the various packages on my machine that install files there: > > gstreamer1-1.6.0-2.fc23.x86_64 > javapackages-tools-4.6.0-6.fc23.noarch > kde-settings-23-7.fc23.noarch > nodejs-0.10.36-4.fc23.x86_64 > perl-generators-1.06-1.fc23.noarch > python3-cups-1.9.72-2.fc23.x86_64 > redhat-rpm-config-36-1.fc23.noarch > rpm-build-4.13.0-0.rc1.4.fc23.x86_64 > rpm-mpi-hooks-3-2.fc23.noarch > > 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? > I agree. While Petr is right from an purist POV practicality is what counts here. Forcing all those packages to either require rpmbuild or splitting out an devel-rpm sub package is not a good option. Having the directory within rpm makes things work without any Requires: I moved the directory over in rawhide (rpm-4.13.0-0.rc1.8.fc24). It is probably a bit late for F23. Shall I clone the bug for javapackages-tools, rpm-mpi-hooks, supermin-devel to get them adjusted or can you take care of them on your own? Florian -- Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/ Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Charles Peters -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
