I noticed a package in the review queue doing this to manage its logfile:
%post /sbin/chkconfig --add %{name} touch %{_localstatedir}/log/%{name} chown sip:sip %{_localstatedir}/log/%{name}
%files [...] %ghost %attr(0644,sip,sip) %{_localstatedir}/log/%{name}
(the sip user/group are created in %pre).
I was unsure of the difference between this and simply owning the file in %files; the ownership comes out right, but behavior might differ on upgrades and there's the issue of rpm -V. Does %ghost imply something like %verify(not md5 size mtime)?
That's the best current practice for doing this?
- J<
Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs@math.uh.edu writes:
I noticed a package in the review queue doing this to manage its logfile: ... That's the best current practice for doing this?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Logfiles
Enrico
Enrico Scholz enrico.scholz@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de writes:
I noticed a package in the review queue doing this to manage its logfile:
Wiki conversion removed some important information; original page should be more readable
http://fedoraproject.org/wikiold/PackagingDrafts/Logfiles
Enrico
"ES" == Enrico Scholz enrico.scholz@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de writes:
ES> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Logfiles
Well, no offense, but your tendencies towards needless obfuscation require me ask if these are anyone else's best practices.
At the very least, it's reasonable to ask why these were never submitted to the packaging committee. At least, I don't recall ever seeing them.
- J<
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org