On 10/02/2016 02:21 AM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
On 2 October 2016 at 04:46, Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/01/2016 02:00 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
Hi,
I'm just looking at the rpmlint errors for the xpra package, and one I
am stuck on is this:
xpra.x86_64: E: dir-or-file-in-var-run /var/run/xpra
The package drops a file in /usr/lib/tmpfiles.d which causes the
creation of /var/run/xpra when needed.
The package has this in %{files}:
%ghost %dir %{_localstatedir}/run/xpra
which seems reasonable to me. So I don't really understand the rpmlint
error. I picked two packages at random, fail2ban and systemd, which
also install directories under /var/run and have those directories
listed as %ghost.
So, is the rpmlint error incorrect? Or, should these guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tmpfiles.d
also apply to /var/run? In which case, many packages need fixing to
use %verify, I think.
# ls -l /var/run
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 6 Feb 16 2016 /var/run -> ../run
/var/run is the same thing as /run, so yes they apply. Not sure if we
really need *every* file/dir owned by a package - especially ones in tmpfs
filesystems.
Right. So, the rpmlint error directly contradicts the tmpfiles.d
packaging guidelines then. I'll file a bug against rpmlint.
How does it contradict? The guidelines page says nothing about
%ghosting the file. If you do %ghost it you should %ghost /run/xpra.
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
