https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065685 --- Comment #5 from Achilleas Pipinellis <axilleas@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #4) > (In reply to Achilleas Pipinellis from comment #3) > > About my second query the answer is here [0]. So you must include the top > > level directory which will include the entire tree below it. That addresses > > to `%{gem_extdir_mri}/*`. > > Actually, it should be %{gem_extdir_mri} to own the directory and its > content. By specifying %{gem_extdir_mri}/* you says you own just the > content, but not the directory itself. > Oops, I see where you got confused. When I wrote "That addresses to `%{gem_extdir_mri}/*`" I was referring to the existing macro in the spec. Not what it should be. > > In my previous comment I missed that you don't include `%dir > > %{gem_instdir}`. That would solve the `No known owner of > > /usr/share/gems/gems/unicorn-4.8.2/bin` issue. Then i guess you could also > > omit the `%{gem_instdir}/bin/unicorn` and > > `%{gem_instdir}/bin/unicorn_rails` macros. > > No, that is wrong. The %dir directive says that only the specified directory > is owned, not its content. If you check the files section closely, only the > files under %{gem_instdir}/bin/ are explicitly owned, but the directory > itself is not. > > To solve this, either add "%dir %{gem_instdir}/bin/" or remove the > explicitly specified content of bin dir. The former is more secure, since > you have better control over the bindir content. Thanks for the clarification. If I understand correctly, the right entry would be %dir %{gem_instdir}/bin/ %{gem_instdir}/bin/unicorn %{gem_instdir}/bin/unicorn_rails or equally %{gem_instdir}/bin/ right? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review