Too many unowned directories
Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Mon Feb 2 09:53:22 UTC 2009
Le Lun 2 février 2009 10:08, Michael Schwendt a écrit :
> No, the problem is not worse enough anymore, since RPM at least uses a
> proper umask since F9. Since then it has become more interesting to
> examine unowned dirs which are caused by other packaging mistakes
> (such as misplaced files, missing sub-pkg deps).
BTW, I could simplify the multi-font spec template a lot if having
multiple subpackages own the same font directory was accepted.
Currently one of the major quirks many font packagers fail on is the
way we try very hard to have a single canonical owner of the common
font deployment directory for the srpm.
(IIRC people wanted queries on directory ownership to return a single
package)
--
Nicolas Mailhot
More information about the devel
mailing list