On Thursday, January 30, 2014 2:04 AM, Panu Matilainen > Not true. Rpm allows identical files and directories to be shared, older > rpm versions were buggy in that they did not require owner, group and > permission bits to match. The removal behavior depends solely on the > packages involved: owned directories are removed, unowned are not. That > behavior hasn't changed. So I stand corrected. This makes me happy; I did not like having to change that portion of the original script. > Which would be just fine, but the togo workflow is likely to severely > alienate you from how packaging is *supposed* to work, because of the > way it mixes up buildroot contents, sources and file selection and such. > > I'd kindly suggest you take a bit more time to familiarize yourself how > rpm packaging works as designed. Once you understand that, you'll find > what you seem to think as a some kind of a strange special case > (packaging binary-only software, home-made scripts etc) is no more > strange or difficult than anything else. > > Only when *you* understand how it all fits together will you be in a > position to create an "educating helper" on top. What you fail to realize is that what you claim is the way an RPM is "supposed" to be built has already alienated a large majority of developers from creating RPMs in the first place. If you can successfully build a package that is able to correctly deploy and configure files and services on a system, then you've built it the way it was "supposed" to be built. Let's be honest here; you can lecture and berate people all you want regarding proper policy and procedure, but in the end, people are going to go with the easiest method that meets their requirements. For the vast majority of people with simple, interpreted scripts to package up, that's gonna be Togo, or something like it. > No. File and directory ownership are specified with user- and groupname > in %files, and if the user/group is some package-specific thing, the > user/group need to be created in %pre of a package to allow rpm to set > the ownership as specified by the package. Well, I'll be.... ya learn somethin new every day! > Well, permission bits can to some extent be specified on the directly on > the filesystem but ownership can not, as you must not assume (and should > not use) root for building packages. I said "root directory" - not "root user". -Gene -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
