On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 01:44:25AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote: > Petr Menšík wrote: > > No, that is the reason why I proposed it. Guidelines already state > > *-filesystem packages does not have to be depended on [1]. Just one, > > probably systemd or systemd-libs, should depend on it to get it > > installed. All other can then just ignore the directory exactly as you > > have proposed. In this case it would not be breaking guidelines, but > > according to them instead. > > > > 1. > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership > > That is contradicted by the following quote from the Packaging > Guidelines: > > | Sometimes, it may be preferable for such directories to be owned by > | an "artificial filesystem" package, such as mozilla-filesystem. These > | packages are designed to be explicitly required when other packages > | store files in their directories, thus, in such situations, these > | packages should explicitly Require the artificial filesystem package > | and not multiply own those directories. > > That is, each of those 1600 packages would need to require > systemd-filesystem. > > Perhaps the filesystem package should own these directories? Not > systemd-filesystem, just filesystem. The case is rather similar to > /usr/share/bash-completion, /usr/share/man, /usr/share/info and various > other directories that filesystem owns. I guess that'd make sense. If somebody were to propose a patch for filesystem, I'd be all for it. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ 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
