https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020456 --- Comment #30 from Michael Adam <madam@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Ingvar Hagelund from comment #29) > (In reply to Michael Adam from comment #25) > > > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d, > > > /usr/lib/rpm, /usr/share/bash-completion/completions, /usr/share/bash- > > > completion > > > ==> The correct thing to do seems to be to > > > require bash_completion and rpm, but no other rpms seem to do > > > that... > > (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #28) > > The package now owns the /usr/share/bash-completion, since it is one of the > > example in package guidelines ;) I don't think RPM is optional and we can't > > have a system without the macros.d directory, so I keep it as it is. > > Looks to me as this is normal. > > $ rpm --qf "%{name} " -qf /usr/share/bash-completion; echo > glib2 yum zeitgeist qupzilla createrepo bash-completion glib2 gvfs rpmlint It is true that this seems to be normal (which is what I meant with "no other RPM seems to do it" ... , but that does not necessarily mean that the packaging guidelines say that this is ok. :) And for a new package we should do it right even if established packages get it wrong. In general there is the request to not have multiple packages own the same directory, and fedora-review does complain about it either way, but as Vít has already mentioned, the bash-completion folder (the one below /etc) is an example in the guidelines, so I guess it's ok. (Another solution would be to have a separate vagrant-bashcompletion package that depends on vagrant and on bash-completion.) Michael -- 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