Hi.
While reviewing a package, I stumbled across the use of alternatives and found out it's not regulated in any way in Fedora. So far, I've encountered three ways of handling the symlinks that are set up using alternatives: 1. some packages have Provides: for them (like cups or postfix), 2. some don't own those files at all (like lam or scim), 3. some %ghost them.
All seem to work, but in case of 2. it's not possible to find out which packages own/provide those files using rpm -qf, thus I consider it an inferior solution.
Personally, I'm leaning towards 1., but I don't see any disadvantages in 3., either. Comments?
Having said that, I'm going to write up a guideline to cover that. I expect to have a presentable draft ready in a week or two.
Regards, R.
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 09:51:32PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Hi.
While reviewing a package, I stumbled across the use of alternatives and found out it's not regulated in any way in Fedora. So far, I've encountered three ways of handling the symlinks that are set up using alternatives:
- some packages have Provides: for them (like cups or postfix),
Not all files are provided, only /usr/bin/mailq /usr/bin/newaliases /usr/bin/rmail /usr/sbin/sendmail while man pages are not provided. I think it is right like this.
- some don't own those files at all (like lam or scim),
- some %ghost them.
All seem to work, but in case of 2. it's not possible to find out which packages own/provide those files using rpm -qf, thus I consider it an inferior solution.
I don't think it is that important. Having that right would mean providing all the files in alternatives which could make a lot. In my opinion the provided files should be those that make sense to have as provides (or as yum install /usr/..../file).
Personally, I'm leaning towards 1., but I don't see any disadvantages in 3., either. Comments?
Doesn't %ghost leads to the file being removed?
Having said that, I'm going to write up a guideline to cover that. I expect to have a presentable draft ready in a week or two.
I don't think a guideline is needed, except if there are specific pitfalls. Some advices may be nice, though. I remember that I asked for some when I first got interested in fedora.
-- Pat
Patrice Dumas (pertusus@free.fr) said:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 09:51:32PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Hi.
While reviewing a package, I stumbled across the use of alternatives and found out it's not regulated in any way in Fedora. So far, I've encountered three ways of handling the symlinks that are set up using alternatives:
- some packages have Provides: for them (like cups or postfix),
Not all files are provided, only /usr/bin/mailq /usr/bin/newaliases /usr/bin/rmail /usr/sbin/sendmail while man pages are not provided. I think it is right like this.
Files have to be 'provided' so things that depend on them can work. Hopefully nothing depends on man pages.
Bill
On Monday, 19 May 2008 at 23:39, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 09:51:32PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Hi.
While reviewing a package, I stumbled across the use of alternatives and found out it's not regulated in any way in Fedora. So far, I've encountered three ways of handling the symlinks that are set up using alternatives:
- some packages have Provides: for them (like cups or postfix),
Not all files are provided, only /usr/bin/mailq /usr/bin/newaliases /usr/bin/rmail /usr/sbin/sendmail while man pages are not provided. I think it is right like this.
I'm not so sure. I'd like to be able to tell what package provides sendmail(1) manpage.
- some don't own those files at all (like lam or scim),
- some %ghost them.
All seem to work, but in case of 2. it's not possible to find out which packages own/provide those files using rpm -qf, thus I consider it an inferior solution.
I don't think it is that important. Having that right would mean providing all the files in alternatives which could make a lot. In my opinion the provided files should be those that make sense to have as provides (or as yum install /usr/..../file).
Personally, I'm leaning towards 1., but I don't see any disadvantages in 3., either. Comments?
Doesn't %ghost leads to the file being removed?
If only one package was installed, the file would be removed, but if there are two that %ghost the same file, it stays until the last package owning it is removed.
Having said that, I'm going to write up a guideline to cover that. I expect to have a presentable draft ready in a week or two.
I don't think a guideline is needed, except if there are specific pitfalls. Some advices may be nice, though. I remember that I asked for some when I first got interested in fedora.
Well, *some* hints are definitely necessary. I was a bit in the dark when I tried to review a package that used alternatives and couldn't find any solid information, only different solutions.
Regards, R.
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Hi.
While reviewing a package, I stumbled across the use of alternatives and found out it's not regulated in any way in Fedora. So far, I've encountered three ways of handling the symlinks that are set up using alternatives:
- some packages have Provides: for them (like cups or postfix),
- some don't own those files at all (like lam or scim),
- some %ghost them.
All seem to work, but in case of 2. it's not possible to find out which packages own/provide those files using rpm -qf, thus I consider it an inferior solution.
Personally, I'm leaning towards 1., but I don't see any disadvantages in 3., either. Comments?
My preference in order is: 3, 1, 2. 2 is least desirable, imo, mostly because abhor unowned files.
-- Rex
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Bill Nottingham -
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Patrice Dumas -
Rex Dieter