https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1203018 --- Comment #27 from Marcin Haba <marcin.haba@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hello, Thanks for your suggestions. (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #26) > If this file is modified over time, you should put it somewhere in /var > (/var/lib/baculum perhaps) and mark it with %verify macro accordingly so > that rpm -V doesn't complain when it's modified. /usr/share is for static > content. /var/lib/ is for applications state data. From this reason I do not think that auth data may be stored there. /etc/baculum is better for me, however it is a bit strage for me that web application is allowed to modify /etc/* data. If it is OK for Fedora and there does not exist better candidate for storing these auth data, then I have no choice and I will use /etc/baculum/ > > baculum-httpd.noarch: E: non-readable > > /usr/share/baculum/htdocs/protected/Data/baculum.users 0600L > > > > $ rpmlint ./baculum-lighttpd-7.0.6-0.5.b.fc22.noarch.rpm > [...] > > baculum-lighttpd.noarch: E: non-readable > > /usr/share/baculum/htdocs/protected/Data/baculum.users 0600L > > Please note that you should not duplicate files between two subpackages: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplicate_Files Yes, it is true that these two packages contain the same file. Nevertheless these files are in subpackages that cannot be installed together. I used "Conclicts" tag for them and I explained it in Spec comment. I know that "Conflicts" tag is not too desirable in Fedora due to general design requirements. In this case I think that it is reasonable (please see comment in Spec). -- 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