[Fedora-packaging] Re: Should macro packages co-own /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d, require rpm or do nothing?
On 16. 01. 23 18:13, Björn Persson wrote:
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?
Well, I thought about that as well. What if the RPM that installs/manages the
packages is executed from outside of a chroot/mock/nspawn thing?
See this:
$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 init
...
$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --remove rpm
...
$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --dnf-cmd repoquery --installed -f
/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.dist
...
fedora-release-common-0:38-0.15.noarch
...
$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --dnf-cmd repoquery --installed -f
/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d
...
(no package listed)
...
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok