/usr/lib/debug ownership

[Alec Leamas]

On 02/16/2013 12:47 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 02/16/2013 01:33 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
>> On 02/16/2013 11:41 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>> On 02/16/2013 11:44 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
>>>> On 02/15/2013 11:58 PM, Till Maas wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:50:28AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> - make a script to identify all the packages that are broken and
>>>>>>    shipping debug stuff.
>>>>> AT least for the directory a simple yum call should suffice:
>>>>> yum --disablerepo '*' --enablerepo fedora\*  whatprovides
>>>>> /usr/lib/debug
>>>>>
>>>>> But it shows that a lot (all?) debuginfo packages own the directory
>>>>> which probably needs to be fixed in rpm itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Till
>>>> I have filed a bug against filesystem: BZ 911831.
>>>>
>>>> I get 46 owners of /usr/lib/debug, that can't be all debug packages...
>>>>
>>>> Shall we file a bug against rpm, saying that claiming the complete 
>>>> path
>>>> doesn't really work? I see the problems here, if rpm shouldn't 
>>>> claim the
>>>> complete path /usr/lib/debug/lib/whatever, the part to claim is 
>>>> more or
>>>> less arbitrary.
>>>
>>>
>>> Multiple owned directories might not be "packaging purist clean" :)
>>> but since -debuginfo packages are auto-generated and thus kinda
>>> guaranteed to be non-conflicting, it's just the less ugly option when
>>> the alternative is leaving empty directories behind. Which is what
>>> would happen if -debuginfo packages didn't own *all* the directories
>>> they put files into.
>>>
>>>     - Panu -
>>>
>>>
>> Well, I try to be practical (believe it or not). This explanation looks
>> perfectly sound to me (although  it still seems inconsistent that
>> filesystem owns /usr/src/debug but not /usr/lib/debug).
>
> Ah, didn't know filesystem owns some of the toplevel debug 
> directories. Not particularly harmful but consistency rarely hurts.
>
>>
>> I ran into this while automating some tests about directory ownership in
>> fedora-review. If we all agree that Panu's position is OK, I would be
>> more than happy to just exclude /usr/l{lib,src}/debug from the ownership
>> checks. With that we should be able to close this discussion.
>>
>> However,  at least Kevin had other ideas. So did I, but I'm flexible and
>> have changed my mind  :)
>
> I think Kevin was talking about "normal", ie non-debuginfo packages 
> like the example case of nacl-devel owning /usr/lib/debug, which 
> indeed is a (trivial) packaging bug. Except perhaps for the filesystem 
> package which is fairly special case anyway.
>
> OTOH because -debuginfo packages always own all the relevant 
> directories there's no need for filesystem to own them, which would 
> allow for a nice and clean rule: any non-debuginfo package owning the 
> *debug directories can be considered an unnecessary multiple directory 
> ownership (and a bug of sorts).
>
>     - Panu -
>
Well, isn't the rule is actually simpler than that: any  package owning 
a directory owned by another package is  broken. It's just that we 
should not apply this rule to debuginfo packages, which are 
auto-generated and thus are OK by definition.

Perhaps it should  might make sense to mention this in the guidelines, 
which as of now actually states that any directory is owned by exactly 
one package. This exception for debuginfo directories is not mentioned. 
It doesn't really matter when doing regular packaging, but it does make 
a difference when checking for guidelines compliance ...

--alec