Am 17.03.21 um 16:47 schrieb Kevin
Fenzi:
It maybe not Florians use-case, but we may have a similar situation on pinephone:On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 10:25:24AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:Does Fedora has any policies regarding editing or replacing (say with symbolic links) of configuration files owned by another package? That is, automatically on system or package installation, and not as a tool that system administrators run explicitly to make changes to those files.I don't see anything explicit. There's: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership which talks about a package owning all it's files, but it doesn't explicitly say no to this. That said, IMHO this should be forbidden. Whats the use case?
fedora-release-common-32-4.noarch owns /etc/os-release
our spin should identify itself as "XXXXXX" via variant_id added to os-release.
3 Ways:
1) contacting the package owner, and ask for his help on this case.
2) a replacement package with a changed version of os-release is stored into copr ( higher priority )
3) a helper package post-script adds the needed line to os-release if not present ( USE-CASE here )
Whats actually the best way to deal with it?
Best regards,
Marius
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
