Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 23:50 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/GConf#Compare_gconf_schemas >> >> mclasen, would the new macros or something like them be acceptable to you? >> > > Sure, looks fine to me in general. > > Small nit: I think for the 'obsoleting schema1' case, you need to have > some "if [ -f "$schema" ]; " in there somewhere, since you don't know > which version was previously installed. > Thanks, I was relying too much on >/dev/null || : to protect us. Fixed now. > That also brings up the point that it is hard to know when to drop this > obsoleting call, but that is nothing new and not that important, it > happens relatively rarely that schemas get dropped. > Yeah, we currently leave that up to the maintainer (by not mentioning it at all). If you have thoughts on how long is good enough, I'll be happy to add a note about it. > In %gconf_schema_upgrade, I think you want to remove to copy > in /var/lib/rpm-state/gconf regardless of the outcome of the comparison. > Good catch. Fixed. > As far as owning the directory, I think it should be owned by whichever > package ends up installing the macros. > Sounds right. The only constraint is that the macros are needed at build time and the directory is needed at install time. So if we put it in the GConf2 package, we'd want to add it to the BuildRequires. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
