On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 03:16:12PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Thursday 15 March 2007, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > A workaround would be to not own this folder which is very ugly, > > violates guidelines, leaves orphaned folders behind, and is just not > > The Right Solution. Which is The Right Solution? > > Well, if I understand correctly, considering that fiddling with the > permissions of this dir is required for the purpose of enabling mediawiki to > create files in it, and those created files will not be owned by the > mediawiki package in any case and will be left behind on package erase (ditto > the dir if there are files in it, dir owned or not), I don't think leaving it > unowned would be anywhere near a cardinal sin either. > > In fact, it sounds much better to me than changing permissions of packaged > files - package upgrades reset permissions of files, %config or not. Ditto > rpm --setperms/--setugids. Which is why IMHO the answer to the original > question is "don't even try to require changing permissions/ownership of > packaged files, find a better way around the problem". So, you suggest to not ship the folder at all? Or create it in %post to evade the folder entering the manifest? > Marking the dir as %ghost and experimenting how it behaves then could also be > of (mostly academic) interest. Well, %ghosting is for having something in the manifest w/o shipping it. I want the opposite :) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpzX53jwl241.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
