Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 12:08 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>>>>>> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> TK> yelp owns it. There's a question of whether packages which have >> TK> gnome help should Require yelp or not. >> >> What about a package that _only_ provides gnome help? The >> system-config-* packages have split out their documentation and I'm >> reviewing the new packages, but am stuck on this issue. >> >> TK> If yelp is not Required, then filesystem should own >> TK> /usr/share/gnome/help. If yelp is required, the filesystem >> TK> ownership will do no harm. >> >> This would imply that any package other than yelp or filesystem which >> owns /usr/share/gnome/help has a bug, I guess. More to file. > > Filing more bugs does not really help improve this situation. What situation precisely? The passage quoted implicates adding /usr/share/gnome/help to the filesystem package and then changing individual packages to not own /usr/share/gnome/help as filesystem would then own it. That does seem like an improvement over the current situation. I have a feeling you're thinking of something more meta, though. > Fixing rpm to handle directories sensibly would. > This is probably something you need to talk to the rpm maintainers about. They've been making lots of changes to rpm recently. If you have a proposal, they'll be able to tell us if it's something that's doable in the continued rpm cleanup or something that goes too deeply into what rpm is. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
