On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 01:24:57 +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Probably better to just drop the -filesystem subpackage and make all dependent > packages co-own that dir. Those -filesystem packages are a remnant of time > before repoquery could be used to easily find all packages that use some > directory. Unrelated. Original repoquery is very old. And before repoquery, there have been various scripts to query remote repositories OR even create and query an RPMDB for all packages in Rawhide, for example. Tons of directory problems have been found and reported without and before repoquery. The -filesystem subpackage part of the guidelines has been enhanced multiple times long after availability of repoquery. > IMHO the rules that recommend -filesystem packages or similar > labour-intensive solutions over simply co-owning the directory are a total > waste of package time. The guidelines serve a simple purpose: Avoid co-owning directories as much as possible, because packages get directory ownership and/or permissions wrong _again and again_. The larger a shared directory tree is, the more it makes sense to put it into a separate -filesystem subpackage. But let two packagers create a new package for something from scratch, and they will come up with a different solution, such as a different set of subpackages and even different names for the subpackages. Even with tools like repoquery, it has not been easy for other packages to understand subpackage concepts, such as whether and when to add an explicit dependency on a -common subpackage. The next version upgrade, and suddenly the packagers removed that subpackage again or filled it with different files. It cannot be pointed out often enough, packaging guidelines would need to be much more detailed in order to remove all the ambiguities that are left today. One could fill a book with many pages. I'd like to see a move towards reducing the [sub]package number. I'd prefer more monolithic packages for large applications, no matter whether it would increase the install size and pull in more dependencies, but this would need to be decide by project leadership and not individual packagers. Dozens to hundreds of tiny packages in the KiB size range is nuts, and almost 5000 packages in the texlive- namespace is sheer madness. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
