Le Mer 15 octobre 2008 22:39, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit : > > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> Le mercredi 15 octobre 2008 à 15:10 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit : >>> The idea of having separate conf.avail and conf.d is that sysadmins >>> can >>> symlink/unlink entries into conf.d to enable/disable configuration >>> for their >>> system. This would only work if upgrading fontconfig/fonts rpms >>> does not >>> reinstate the unlinked symlink. However, last time I checked this >>> was not >>> working correctly. Can you check this first? >> >> I didn't write it in the wiki, but as far as I understand rpm it is >> not >> possible to tell it "if this file/symlink does not exist do not >> install >> it". So this bit of conf.avail/conf.d design will never work on rpm >> systems. And even if it worked, what you'd actually need would be >> "if >> this file does not exist and was installed by a previous rpm" to >> handle >> initial deployment. Which starts to be real hairy. > > Well, it is: don't include the symlink in the RPM but create it in > %post, and > only if no previous versions of the package were installed ($1 = 0 > IIRC). Yurk. How safe is it WRT package renames? Because we've been renaming font packages a lot in the past (and I plan another mass rename for F11, hopefully the last one but I wouldn't bet anything I care about on it). Really this is being too clever for your own good IMHO. >> However (someone please check this) it's probably possible to >> disable an >> entry permanently by creating a symlink with the same name pointing >> somewhere else > > This can be ok. If it works, we can document it. >> Also (and this bit is traced on the wiki) as I understand the >> FHS /etc/.../conf.avail is a complete no-go and should be moved >> to /usr/share/something if we want to be clean. And that >> before /etc/.../conf.avail is duplicated in many packages. > > Really? Where does it talk about those kind of stuff? In conf.avail files are not really user-editable config files (in fact you don't use config(noreplace) so any package update will stomp on user modifications). They're more static configuration blocks users can not change but only activate/desactivate in conf.d via symlinks, and as such they match the "read-only architecture independent data files" definition of /usr/share. That rpmlint complains of %config files without noreplace in /etc is a pretty strong hint those files are misplaced. In fact one can wonder what's good is there %config-ing them at all. IIRC there was a pretty long thread on the subject in fedora-devel in the last months, but I don't have the time to pull it from archives. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
