On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Sanford Rockowitz
<rockowitz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I hope this list is appropriate for asking a question regarding rpm file
> ownership. As a relative rpm newbie, I suspect I'm missing some piece of
> "secret sauce" that's just obvious to anyone with rpm experience. If there's
> a more appropriate place to post the question, I'd appreciate a pointer.
> Thanks in advance.
>
> The application in question is named ddcutil. I'm creating directories
> /usr/share/ddcutil and /usr/share/doc/ddcutil and saving files in them. rpm
> marks the files as being owned by ddcutil, but not the directories.
Don't waste your time. Simply declare the files in your build
directory as "%doc" in your .spec file, and they will wind up copied
to /usr/share/doc/ddcutile-%{version} automatically.
> As I read the documentation (e.g. e.g.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package,
> http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/RPM-HOWTO/build.html), a directory is regarded as
> being owned by an application if the directory name is specified either a)
> without the %dir macro (in which case all files in the directory tree rooted
> at the specified name are marked owned and installed) or b) prefaced by the
> %dir macro, in which case only the directory is marked. I've tried both
> ways.
>
> The observed problem is similar for /usr/share/ddcutil and
> /usr/share/doc/ddcutil, so I'll give details only for the former.
>
> Here's the relevant segment from the %files section:
>
> %{_datadir}/%{name}
>
> Alternatively, I've tried coding the segment as follows:
>
> %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}
> %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/data
> %{_datadir}/%{name}/data/*rules
> %{_datadir}/%{name}/data/90-nvidia-i2c.conf
>
> In either case, the built rpm creates the directories and saves the files.
> The individual files are regarded as being owned by ddcutil, but not the
> directories.
Why would you want anything in /usr/share/doc/ owned as anything other
than root, which is the default? Basically, stop trying to replace the
"%doc" macro with your own handwritten workaround.
> What do I need to do to cause the directories to be owned?
>
> In more detail, querying rpm shows that the files are saved and are owned by
> ddcutil, but the directories are not owned by ddcutil:
>
> [rock@banner results]$ rpm -ql ddcutil
> /usr/bin/ddcutil
> /usr/lib/.build-id
> /usr/lib/.build-id/db
> /usr/lib/.build-id/db/011d82f3eab5166e52eec359cb76b0773fd965
> /usr/share/ddcutil/data/45-ddcutil-i2c.rules
> /usr/share/ddcutil/data/45-ddcutil-usb.rules
> /usr/share/ddcutil/data/90-nvidia-i2c.conf
> /usr/share/doc/ddcutil/AUTHORS
> /usr/share/doc/ddcutil/COPYING
> /usr/share/doc/ddcutil/NEWS
> /usr/share/doc/ddcutil/README.md
> /usr/share/man/man1/ddcutil.1.gz
>
> [rock@banner results]$ rpm -qf
> /usr/share/ddcutil/data/45-ddcutil-i2c.rules
> ddcutil-0.8.3-1.fc27.x86_64
>
> [rock@banner results]$ rpm -q --whatprovides
> /usr/share/ddcutil/data/45-ddcutil-i2c.rules
> ddcutil-0.8.3-1.fc27.x86_64
>
> [rock@banner results]$ rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/share/ddcutil
> file /usr/share/ddcutil is not owned by any package
>
> [rock@banner results]# rpm -qf /usr/share/ddcutil
> file /usr/share/ddcutil is not owned by any package
>
> The report from fedora-review is consistent with rpm --query:
>
> [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/ddcutil
> [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/ddcutil,
> /usr/share/ddcutil, /usr/share/ddcutil/data
>
> _______________________________________________
> packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
