On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 02:55:25PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> 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.
I'm not sure, if it does, then don't %ghost it. The drawback of not
ghosting would be a phony empty /etc/pki/tls/localhost.crt.rpmnew. But
this could be removed in the same %post operation that generates the
contents for /etc/pki/tls/localhost.crt.
E.g.
%install
...
touch %{buildroot}%{mycert}
...
%post
rm -f %{mycert}.rpmnew
if ...
... > %{mycert}
fi
%files
...
%config(noreplace) %{mycert}
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpPZrAYU3wdj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
