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), 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. Personally, I'm leaning towards 1., but I don't see any disadvantages in 3., either. Comments?
My preference in order is: 3, 1, 2. 2 is least desirable, imo, mostly because abhor unowned files.
-- Rex -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
