On 09/02/2009 08:47 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silvanus@xxxxxxxxx) said: >>>> Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to >>>> move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base >>>> filesystem package. >>> >>> Then the guidelines should be fixed to create less confusion over the >>> matter. >>> >> Another precedence is with bash-completion -- the consensus is for >> packages that provide completion scripts to own /etc/bash_completion.d > > OK, I've written up the following, which should be more clear: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BillNottingham/DirectoryDraft > Section 1.3 Optional functoinality is a special case of Section 1.5 Common directory without one requiring the other. I'd combine them like this: """ Multiple packages have files in a common directory but none of them needs to require the others. An example: bash-completion owns the /etc/bash_completion.d directory and uses the files placed in there to configure itself git places files into /etc/bash_completion.d bzr places files into /etc/bash_completion.d Solution: Both the git and bzr packages should own the /etc/bash_completion.d directory as bash-completion is optional functionality and the installation of git or bzr should not force the installation of bash-completion. """ And one more idea to throw out there: How sacred is filesystem? How costly are adding new directories to it? For something like /etc/prelink.conf.d, adding to filesystem seems like the preferred option. If there's little cost involved, adding to filesystem for things like /etc/bash_completion.d also seems like the preferred solution. If there's no reason we shouldn't be expanding filesystem, I'd list that as an option in the directory draft as well. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
