On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 09:51:32PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > Hi. > > While reviewing a package, I stumbled across the use of alternatives > and found out it's not regulated in any way in Fedora. So far, I've > encountered three ways of handling the symlinks that are set up using > alternatives: > 1. some packages have Provides: for them (like cups or postfix), Not all files are provided, only /usr/bin/mailq /usr/bin/newaliases /usr/bin/rmail /usr/sbin/sendmail while man pages are not provided. I think it is right like this. > 2. some don't own those files at all (like lam or scim), > 3. some %ghost them. > > All seem to work, but in case of 2. it's not possible to find out which > packages own/provide those files using rpm -qf, thus I consider it an > inferior solution. I don't think it is that important. Having that right would mean providing all the files in alternatives which could make a lot. In my opinion the provided files should be those that make sense to have as provides (or as yum install /usr/..../file). > Personally, I'm leaning towards 1., but I don't see any disadvantages > in 3., either. Comments? Doesn't %ghost leads to the file being removed? > Having said that, I'm going to write up a guideline to cover that. I expect > to have a presentable draft ready in a week or two. I don't think a guideline is needed, except if there are specific pitfalls. Some advices may be nice, though. I remember that I asked for some when I first got interested in fedora. -- Pat -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
