On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:31 AM, Seth Vidal wrote: > > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Tom \"spot\" Callaway wrote: > >> >> Alright. I'm putting this on the top of my todo list, which means I'll >> probably get to it sometime in the next week or two. I'm putting my >> janitor hat on and just fixing it for people (I will announce that I am >> doing it before hand). >> > > What are the other criteria for 'improper' duplicate dir ownerships? Are > there any other that I can drop into the script to make it easier/faster? > Many perl packages own same directories. I don't know how easy will it be to implement the "properness" of their duplicate dir ownerships. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Directory_Ownership There are also corner cases. For instance /usr/lib/dssi/ is owned by both dssi and dssi-vst-wine. The reason is dssi-vst-wine is built on i586 only and puts its files in /usr/lib/dssi/dssi-vst/ But dssi-vst-wine is in the multilib whitelist and hence is also available in the x86_64 repo. There is nothing else in the x86_64 repo that would own /usr/lib/dssi/ because dssi itself does not need to be multilibbed. So dssi-vst-wine is owning it. I know the above example is confusing but it shows that one must be *very careful* when "fixing" the multiple ownerships. Orcan -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
