Re: Should macro packages co-own /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d, require rpm or do nothing?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Or is 
> the "this is RPM, it's always going to be there" argument stronger than the 
> rules? Is RPM actually always guaranteed to be there?

Well, if RPM somehow isn't there, does it still matter whether a
directory is owned by any RPM package? What does it even mean for an
RPM package to own a directory when there is no RPM keeping track of
that ownership?

Björn Persson

Attachment: pgpQH3y0L64dh.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur

_______________________________________________
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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux