On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 14:58 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Brian Pepple wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-09-08 at 12:46 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > >>> Is this fixed scrollkeeper going to be issued as an update for FC-5 or > >>> am I going to have to retain ownership of /usr/share/omf in the FC-5 > >>> branches of my affected package(s)? > >> Looking in cvs, I see that scrollkeeper only owns /usr/share/omf in the > >> development "branch", and not the older (e.g. FC-5) branches. So I shall > >> continue to have my packages own /usr/share/omf for the older releases > >> when necessary. > > > > That's fine for older branches. > > > > I still see no resolution or any solution in sight for the fact that > most packages which currently own /usr/share/omf don't require > scrollkeeper and that thus scrollkeeper owning /usr/share/omf now isn't > any help at all, and thus all the filed bugs are a bit bogus. Since this problem is going to come up again and again, should we maybe think about making rpm smart enough to figure out on its own that a package that installs files in /usr/share/omf must require that directory ? That way we can avoid littering our packages with yet more explicit requires. Just a thought, Matthias -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
