On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 09:51:32PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
While reviewing a package, I stumbled across the use of alternatives
and found out it's not regulated in any way in Fedora. So far, I've
encountered three ways of handling the symlinks that are set up using
1. some packages have Provides: for them (like cups or postfix),
Not all files are provided, only
while man pages are not provided. I think it is right like this.
2. some don't own those files at all (like lam or scim),
3. some %ghost them.
All seem to work, but in case of 2. it's not possible to find out which
packages own/provide those files using rpm -qf, thus I consider it an
I don't think it is that important. Having that right would mean
providing all the files in alternatives which could make a lot. In my
opinion the provided files should be those that make sense to have as
provides (or as yum install /usr/..../file).
Personally, I'm leaning towards 1., but I don't see any
in 3., either. Comments?
Doesn't %ghost leads to the file being removed?
Having said that, I'm going to write up a guideline to cover
that. I expect
to have a presentable draft ready in a week or two.
I don't think a guideline is needed, except if there are specific
pitfalls. Some advices may be nice, though. I remember that I asked for
some when I first got interested in fedora.