Dne 29. 06. 22 v 1:17 Maxwell G napsal(a):
On Monday, June 27, 2022 10:59:05 AM CDT Vít Ondruch wrote:Dne 27. 06. 22 v 17:55 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):I think that in practice, owning just `%{_datadir}/fish` would be enough, because the package one prepares probably won't have any additional content in this directory apart from the `%{_datadir}/fish/vendor_completions.d/%{name}.fish` file. But of course, the more verbose version you used provides more control.Yeah, that's what I said right below the part you quoted :).
Ah, you are right, sorry. The example probably caught all my attention :)
BTW why not have package such as bash-completion-filesystem, etc? I wish the filesystem package was smaller.I do agree that the filesystem package is rather large. When I created my PR to add the directories to filesystem, there were so many arguments being passed to mkdir that I had to split them up to avoid an error message[1]. The bash completion directories are already owned by filesystem, so I agreed that it made sense to add the other ones. If there is consensus to remove those directories from filesystem and not add the others, I can create a shell- completions-filesystem package (or separate filesystem packages per shell). FWIW, ``` $ parallel rpm -qf -- /usr/share/bash-completion/completions/* | pkgname | sort | uniq | wc -l 119 ``` on my system, so if that's at all representative, I'm not sure that it's worthwhile to create a separate package that is almost certain to be pulled in by something.
Just FTR, I am coming to this request from quite different angle and that are SCLs (not that they are very much alive, but ...). The issue is that every SCL emulates the filesystem structure in /opt, while probably just minority of the directories are used. Not mentioning that these days, nobody really knows how is the filesystem emulated in SCLs. From this POV, it would be much better if filesystem contained just the essential directories.
Also, installing just the filesystem consumes surprisingly huge amount of disk space.
IOW, filesystem (or RPM directory handling) would IMO deserve big overhaul. But don't get me wrong, I am not against your proposal, I just see more opportunities ;)
Vít
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
