Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xarchiver https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198098 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2006-11-13 06:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras/review/SPECS/xarchiver.spec > http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras/review/SRPMS/xarchiver-0.4.2-0.1.rc2.fc7.src.rpm > > Maybe it's easier to drop the sub-package, but then we'll have to include > fedora-xarchiver.tap in thunar-archive-plugin. Simply leaving it in the > xarchiver main package (without a dependency on the archive plugin) would lead > to an unowned /usr/libexec/thunar-archive-plugin/ if thunar(-archive-plugin) is > not installed. If the archive plugin is installed, this dir would be owned by > two packages. Bad Idea. I don't think it is a bad idea in that case. Indeed, thunar-archive-plugin has a plugin-script system. This allows for some flexibility we should take advantage of. In my opinion it should be possible to have a random package (preferrably a graphical unarchiver package ;-) drop a script in /usr/libexec/thunar-archive-plugin/ even if thunar-archive-plugin isn't installed. To still have right directory owning, there are 2 possibilities: * have all plugin packages own /usr/libexec/thunar-archive-plugin/ * add a filesystem-like package which holds that directory and that packages depend on. Both options may make sense depending on the case, here I think having multiple owners is the cleanest way. > Opinions? Drop the sub-package and move the file over to thunar-archive-plugin? No, drop the sub-package and own /usr/libexec/thunar-archive-plugin/. In any case I don't think that having a package only for the thunar-archive-plugin plugin script makes sense. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review