https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323334 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- > INFO: installing package(s): /tmp/1323334-qtpass/results/qtpass-1.1.0-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm /tmp/1323334-qtpass/results/qtpass-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm /tmp/1323334-qtpass/results/qtpass-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm > ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. > # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 25 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /tmp/1323334-qtpass/results/qtpass-1.1.0-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm /tmp/1323334-qtpass/results/qtpass-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm /tmp/1323334-qtpass/results/qtpass-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm This appears to be another instance of #1322166. >> - Package does not own all directories it creates so in %files section >> it might be necessary to add lines >> %dir %{_datadir}/icons/ >> %dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor >> %dir %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable >I feel weird including these in my package.... since hicolor-icon-theme already >owns them. I included it as one of the build-requires in the new version Adding BR:hicolor-icon-theme actually doesn't solve anything. It's about who owns the directories after installation. Using dnf repoquery -f /usr/share/icons/hicolor and dnf repoquery -f /usr/share/icons, we can see that: %{_datadir}/icons/ is owned by filesystem, which is always installed, so no need to add this one. %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor is owned by bunch of different packages, including hicolor-icon-theme. You have two choices: either add Requires:hicolor-icon-theme, or co-own %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor and %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable. I think the latter is prefereable, because you don't pull in hicolor-icon-theme. (In reply to Antti Järvinen from comment #3) > Yes Yes, now looks much better. A few issues still remain: > - it looks like it is possible to install debuginfo package without actual > package. As this makes no sense, debuginfo should depend on actual package. > To my understanding this should happen automatically but in my environment > it does not -> I can install the plain debuginfo package. That's actually OK. debuginfo packages can be installed without the main package on purpose. This is for example necessary when debugging coredumps from old versions of the package. Unfortunately I don't think the Guidelines say anything about dependencies. Nevertheless, current practice is not to specify dependencies either way with the debuginfo package. -- 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx