On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 07:45:32 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > I also note that packages un-owning /usr/share/omf will need to add a > dependency on scrollkeeper for the directory ownership; many of the > affected packages will currently only have scriptlet dependencies on > scrollkeeper. And Hans later said: > Indeed, and I wonder of we really want a dependency on scrollkeeper in > this packages, Dunno what the correct answer is. Technically, the scriptlet dependencies do ensure that scrollkeeper package will be around when the current package is installed/erased, and thus proper cleanup will happen if all packages with stuff in omf are removed. But if scrollkeeper package is removed after current package install, omf will be momentarily unowned in the filesystem. I kinda wonder if people really go to the trouble of removing the scrollkeeper package in between though. > then we could argue that all packages containing html > docs should have a dependency on htmlview, etc. Maybe. > Wouldn't it be better to but shared dirs like this into the filesystem > package? The same goes for /usr/share/applications and > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/XxX/apps Not a bad idea. I was also asked to start hunting down packages owning dirs already owned by the filesystem package... :-) Cheers, Christian -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
