Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: acpid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225237 pknirsch@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pknirsch@xxxxxxxxxx |kevin@xxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From pknirsch@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-08 07:05 EST ------- Hm. I've looked at other packages with logfiles in /var/log, and several actually owned those files: pam: %ghost %verify(not md5 size mtime) /var/log/faillog scrollkeeker: %ghost %{_localstatedir}/log/scrollkeeper.log setup: %ghost %attr(0644,root,root) %verify(not md5 size mtime) /var/log/lastlog So there are a few other examples where the logfile is at least being referenced by a package using a %ghost entry. I mean, it boils basically down to what files a package should own. And typically (and historically) those consisted of the files that were clearly and distinctly connected to that package. There could be the packaged files or, like e.g. for /var/cache files created during the lifetime of a package on a system. And imo /var/log/acpid is pretty clearly connected to one specific package, namely acpid. ;) Maybe this point should really be brought up at the next Fedora meeting to see what the opinion of others are on it. The above is just my personal view after maintaining packages for quite some time, but i'd have no problem if the general rule would be to keep /var/log files unreferenced. Read ya, Phil -- 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