Just to be clear: the directory ownership page says something like "if you have multiple packages that use the same directory and do not depend on a common package that owns it they can all own this directory in parallel". But with fonts we have cases where 1. the common package exists for other reasons, or 2 it's only there to own the common directory. In case 2. the guidelines clearly allow dropping common and using multiple ownership. My problem is case 1.: is it ok for each subpackage to own the directory it installs fonts to, even though it depends on a common package that already owns it for other reasons (for example, to put core fonts indexes in it)? Because making the font subpackage macro auto-own the font dir in all cases is trivial, would simplify the templates and avoid packaging errors, but detecting the presence of a common subpackage to avoid the auto-owning in that case is *not* trivial at all. NB: in all this discussion the "common" subpackage is created from the same srpm and never shared with subpackages from another srpm -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
