Hi,
there are some locale that are unowned under /usr/share/man. These directories need to be owned by a package. Many of the more used locales are owned by man/man-pages, but some more exotic are not. It looks like there are about 63 unowned directories coming from the following locale
ca da eo es et gl hu id nb nl nn pt pt_BR sk sr sv tr zh_CN zh_TW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=220265#c17
The current suggestion is to have the package with the man pages to own these, for example the subtree under /usr/share/man/sv/ shoule be owned by
dcraw-8.91-1.fc11.x86_64 fakeroot-1.12.2-21.fc11.x86_64 jwhois-4.0-13.fc11.x86_64 shadow-utils-4.1.2-13.fc11.x86_64
This doesn't seem like a clean or scaling solution and I think it would be better to have these owned by man/man-pages. This probably requires a new guideline, could you please push a matching guideline out, or perhaps just clarify what's there, as I think the intention of the guideline is indeed that the man* packages should own all such directories.
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 22:43 +0300, Axel Thimm wrote:
Hi,
there are some locale that are unowned under /usr/share/man. These directories need to be owned by a package. Many of the more used locales are owned by man/man-pages, but some more exotic are not. It looks like there are about 63 unowned directories coming from the following locale
ca da eo es et gl hu id nb nl nn pt pt_BR sk sr sv tr zh_CN zh_TW
Wouldn't it be best just to make 'filesystem' own the whole directory structure, and make the other packages just own the pages?
On my F11 system 'filesystem' owns /usr/share/man and /usr/share/man* except for /usr/share/manl which isn't owned by anything.
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:55:58PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 22:43 +0300, Axel Thimm wrote:
Hi,
there are some locale that are unowned under /usr/share/man. These directories need to be owned by a package. Many of the more used locales are owned by man/man-pages, but some more exotic are not. It looks like there are about 63 unowned directories coming from the following locale
ca da eo es et gl hu id nb nl nn pt pt_BR sk sr sv tr zh_CN zh_TW
Wouldn't it be best just to make 'filesystem' own the whole directory structure, and make the other packages just own the pages?
Yes, I agree. Also man can be removed form the system as nothing requires it (but man-pages and redhat-lsb) and suddenly these directories become unowned.
But I would go with any solution that doesn't push the ownership down to the packages just offering man pages. As another packager pointed out, the fix he now has to add to own Hungarian locale may become a bug the moment man or man-pages get a Hungarian translation, and the same is true of the other 18 locale.
On my F11 system 'filesystem' owns /usr/share/man and /usr/share/man* except for /usr/share/manl which isn't owned by anything.
On 07/27/2009 03:55 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
ca da eo es et gl hu id nb nl nn pt pt_BR sk sr sv tr zh_CN zh_TW
Wouldn't it be best just to make 'filesystem' own the whole directory structure, and make the other packages just own the pages?
I'm inclined to agree with this. Does anyone think this is a bad idea?
~spot
On 07/28/2009 12:49 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On 07/27/2009 03:55 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
ca da eo es et gl hu id nb nl nn pt pt_BR sk sr sv tr zh_CN zh_TW
Wouldn't it be best just to make 'filesystem' own the whole directory structure, and make the other packages just own the pages?
I'm inclined to agree with this. Does anyone think this is a bad idea?
IIRC, we discussed this topic several years ago and already agreed up it, then :)
IIRC², the only problem left had been agreeing upon which "languages to carry" and how let this "extended filesystem" interact with rpm --excludedocs.
[Problem: ATM, these lang-subdirs are installed by individual packages, i.e. most users only see a subset of "all languages". With an "extended filesystem" people would see all of them, with most of them being empty. %ghosting them?]
Ralf
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 01:02 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/28/2009 12:49 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On 07/27/2009 03:55 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
ca da eo es et gl hu id nb nl nn pt pt_BR sk sr sv tr zh_CN zh_TW
Wouldn't it be best just to make 'filesystem' own the whole directory structure, and make the other packages just own the pages?
I'm inclined to agree with this. Does anyone think this is a bad idea?
IIRC, we discussed this topic several years ago and already agreed up it, then :)
IIRC², the only problem left had been agreeing upon which "languages to carry" and how let this "extended filesystem" interact with rpm --excludedocs.
Will the list of languages to carry be explicitly defined, or will it just be the set of all languages that have one or man pages in the group of @everything packages for that Fedora release?
[Problem: ATM, these lang-subdirs are installed by individual packages, i.e. most users only see a subset of "all languages". With an "extended filesystem" people would see all of them, with most of them being empty. %ghosting them?]
Ralf
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
On 07/27/2009 03:49 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On 07/27/2009 03:55 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
ca da eo es et gl hu id nb nl nn pt pt_BR sk sr sv tr zh_CN zh_TW
Wouldn't it be best just to make 'filesystem' own the whole directory structure, and make the other packages just own the pages?
I'm inclined to agree with this. Does anyone think this is a bad idea?
This seems like the proper thing to do.
-Toshio
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"TC" == Tom "spot" Callaway <Tom> writes:
TC> I'm inclined to agree with this. Does anyone think this is a bad TC> idea?
Makes sense to me. The only issue I see is how much bureaucracy it takes to get a new directory added to that package.
- J<
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
Sounds rational.
WTR bureaucracy, would anything beyond a BZ be required?
On 07/28/2009 08:23 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
WTR bureaucracy, would anything beyond a BZ be required?
I doubt it. The only question remaining is:
* Which locale directories should be created and how is that determined?
I'm inclined to say that it should be:
for locale in aa af am an ar as az be bg bn bo br bs ca cs cy da de dv dz el en eo es et eu \ fa fi fo fr fy ga gd gl gu gv ha he hi hr ht hu hy id ig ik is it iu iw ja ka kk kl km kn ko ks ku kw \ ky lg li lo lt lv mg mi mk ml mn mr ms mt nb ne nl nn no nr oc om or pa pl pt pt_BR ro ru rw sa \ sc sd se si sk sl so sq sr ss st sv ta te tg th ti tk tl tn tr ts tt ug uk ur uz ve vi wa wo xh yi \ yo zh zh_CN zh_TW zu; do mkdir %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/$locale for a in `seq 0 3`; do mkdir %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/$locale/man$ap done for b in `seq 0 9`; do mkdir %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/$locale/man$b done done
That covers everything glibc currently knows about.
~spot
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Axel Thimm -
Dennis Gregorovic -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Jon Ciesla -
Ralf Corsepius -
Susi Lehtola -
Tom Callaway -
Toshio Kuratomi