redeclipse: packaging symlinks and directory ownership

Martin Erik Werner martinerikwerner at
Mon May 28 17:31:45 UTC 2012

I have a couple of packaging questions for a new package, the FPS game
redeclipse[0], which are currently in testing[1].

I have three resulting binary packages {redeclipse, redeclipse-server,
redeclipse-data} where redeclipse depends on redeclipse-data as the only
inter-dependency. (Splitting -data into a separate source package is a
future todo item...)

Currently all packages place files in %{_libexecdir}/%{name}/ (client
binary, server binary, and a symlink to the data dir).

In this case, should only the -server and -data packages own this
directory, or would it be more appropriate if all three owned it?

I was thinking of moving the symlink from the -data package to the
client ("redeclipse") package, which would mean that unless the -data
dependency is installed, there would be a broken symlink, is this
something that's acceptable? Or need symlinks be unbroken within a
single package regardless of dependencies?

redeclipse is currently pushed as an update to testing[1] (not in stable
yet), and this version includes the unowned directory
%{_libexecdir}/%{name}/ (which I discovered recently).

What would be my course of action with regards to the f17 update? Should
I abort it and push a new one (and go through the review process?), or
should I let it go and fix this in a subsequent update; how critical are
unowned dirs like this?

Martin Erik Werner <martinerikwerner at>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the devel mailing list