On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 03:47:43PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 02:40:16PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 08:45:06PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > > I'd be interested in seeing examples of cases where creating files in > > > %post that are not owned by %files would be wanted. I can't think of > > > any. > > > > With httpd we auto-generate a unique SSL certificate in %post > > (/etc/pki/tls/localhost.crt et al; some other packages are similar > > IIRC). I don't think it would be correct to have those generated files > > %files-owned by the package in any way. > > I wouldn't consider certificates config files anyway. although one > should think about ownership over them, too. What's wrong with > %ghost %config(noreplace) them? Upgrades won't touch them. I don't know how a ghosted noreplace file would be handled actually. Would an --erase always remove such a file? That is not really desirable. Jesse: yes, generating the files at first invocation would be a good idea. But I don't think it makes a difference *when* the file is generated w.r.t. the question of whether the package should own it though. joe -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
