Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608141 --- Comment #5 from Chen Lei <supercyper1@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-28 02:37:28 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > If you are talking about gdk-pixbuf2, then I think that package is actually > doing a wrong thing. Probably just an oversight, not something deliberate. > > gdk-pixbuf2 currently has: > %files devel > %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/* > > ... and no dependency on gtk-doc. > > What matters for RPM directory handling is that every single directory has to > be owned by something. If we put files in %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/*, then > %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/ and %{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html/ need to be either owned by > this package or something that it depends on, otherwise RPM will leave > directories behind when it removes this package. > Yep, those minor packaging bugs are very common, I can't see any consistency on treating those directory ownership issue. Even very core packages also have those issues. > In that FPC thread people were suggesting adding these directories to either > gnome-filesystem, filesystem, gtk-doc-filesystem, or making every package > co-own these directories. Until any of these *filesystem packages are > introduced, we have two options: > > 1) depend on gtk-doc > 2) co-own both directories. > > I think lets leave the gtk-doc dep as it is right now and wait for FPC > decision. I'll keep an eye on the discussion and will update the package > accordingly. The problem is those html files are irrelevant to gtk-doc, they are used by devhelp or firefox. Personally, I think adding irrelevant dependencies is also a packaging bug. So I suggest using 2) co-own both directories before FPC's decision. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review