[Fedora-packaging] Should /usr/share/aclocal be in filesystem?

[Tom "spot" Callaway]

On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 14:07 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 14:05 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 11:15 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > > Many packages dump their aclocal files in /usr/share/aclocal, but really 
> > > don't need to require automake for normal usage.  Should all of these 
> > > packages also own /usr/share/aclocal, or should it get moved to filesystem?
> > 
> > Seems like a decent idea to move to filesystem.
> > 
> 
> Can we please not change our stance on this every other release ? 
> I've added tons of Requires: automake for this exact reason. 
> And it doesn't seem like a big burden for a devel package to require
> automake. If we are not talking about devel packages, then that would be
> the thing to fix...

Technically, we're not really changing our stance here. 

If all of the packages putting aclocal bits are -devel packages, then it
should be ok to let automake own that directory, and have those -devel
packages depend on automake. If we've got non-devel packages doing this,
then we need to look into moving that directory ownership to something
more universal, like filesystem.

The stance here is that packages need to Require (either directly, or
implicitly through a dep chain) the packages which provide directories
that they put files in.

~spot