[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       opensuse-packaging
Subject:    Re: [opensuse-packaging] rpmlint rules for /var/run
From:       Ludwig Nussel <ludwig.nussel () suse ! de>
Date:       2018-12-11 10:29:25
Message-ID: 59f96f43-14bb-b250-9aca-bbf4e8c77175 () suse ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

Thorsten Kukuk schrieb:
> On Mon, Dec 10, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
> 
>> Thorsten Kukuk schrieb:
>>> [...]
>>> In general, %ghost for tmpfiles on tmpfs doesn't make any sense
>>> and only makes later a lot of trouble. This should be completly
>>
>> For example?
> 
> Ever tried to replace a %ghost entry with a real file?

Can you give an example of the use case you see breaking?

>>> forbidden. And robustness is here more important than the wish of
>>
>> Well, if robustness is the main argument then a method that requires
>> packagers to maintain file information in two places and to add fragile
>> scripting sections hardly reaches that goal.
> 
> Ok, with your tmpfiles/%ghost approach, we have this method, which
> requires packages to maintain file information in two places.

As long as a spec file contains a %files section, that is the
canonical place for file information and won't go away. tmpfiles
config means a second place. That is independent of potential
duplication of information.

Anyways, back to the part you decided not to quote. It's already
possible to query binary rpms for their config files, documentation,
licenses etc. So it doesn't look absurd to expect information about
locations where a package dumps runtime data in rpm as well.

cu
Ludwig

-- 
  (o_   Ludwig Nussel
  //\
  V_/_  http://www.suse.com/
SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard,
Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]