Owning /usr/share/icons/hicolor

[Richard Shaw]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> wrote:
> I need some advice for a package review I'm doing.  The package owns
> all the directories from /usr/share/icons/hicolor down to
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, where it stores its icons.  When
> I objected that these directories were already owned by
> hicolor-icon-theme, the packager said:
>
> "This package does not require hicolor-icon-theme neither implicit nor explecit.
> Acourding to the Package guidlines (The directory is owned by a package which
> is not required for your package to function) this package must own these
> directories." [sic]
>
> On my system, with lots of icon-using packages installed,
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor is owned by 3 packages: hicolor-icon-theme,
> fedora-logos, and setroubleshoot, so there is precedent to back up the
> packager in this case.  On the other hand, there are gobs of packages
> with icons below that directory that do NOT own
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor.  I haven't been able to find anything about
> this issue in the packaging guidelines;
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
> doesn't address this issue.
>
> Are the fedora-logos and setroubleshoot packages doing it the right
> way, and other icon-installing packages need to be fixed?  Are they
> doing it the wrong way, and should be fixed themselves?  Does
> ownership of that directory depend on some other feature of the
> package?

Wow, good question. I've never really thought about it.

The only reason I can postulate that the packager is correct is that
in the odd case that you wanted to remove hicolor-icon-theme (or other
package claiming ownership of said directory tree) is that it's
possible if RPM found that no other packages were claiming ownership
of the directories that they could be removed.

Anyone know if that's a correct statement?

Richard