Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468517 --- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-28 12:08:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > I quite don't understand if you still insist on not owning the package. In case > yes, I don't see what would we gain here, except for having a slight > possibility of the package leaving a stale unowned directory. * Please be consistent with other packages - Currently only 1 (binary) package (shared-mime-info) owns /usr/share/mime - While 81 packages have files under /usr/share/mime/packages (including shared-mime-info) If you want to make it sure that /usr/share/mime is owned by some packages when shared-mime-info is not installed (current packaging guidelines is against this), this is for packaging guidelines issue (you can suggest that this directory must be in filesystem package or so). ref: - 18 packages (??) own /usr/share/icons/hicolor - While 637 packages have files under /usr/share/icons/hicolor/*/apps * And I don't think that XML files under the directory are useful when shared-mime-info is not installed. > > > > Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. I don't see this SEGV on -3, thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review