-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 20:04 +0100, Jose Pedro Oliveira wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Toshio,
> [SNIP]
>> Additionally, the %ghost trick used for both vim and emacs cleanup will
>> cause double ownership of directories which spot says is not just
>> deprecated but a blocker.
> Sorry but I disagree. Even (or better when) if rpm can remove
> packages in the correct order there are situations you can't
> avoid having two or more packages owning the same directory
> (for good examples check packages in the perl namespace).
The only time we're permitting duplicate directory ownership is when
there is not a clear dependency tree:
Package A uses /usr/foo to store files
Package B uses /usr/foo to store files
Neither package relies on anything that creates /usr/foo, and either
package can be installed independently. Then, and ONLY then can both
packages own /usr/foo.
What about these perl cenarios?
Perl module A::B
Perl module A::B::C (and requires A::B)
1) Perl module A::B is a perl core module
perl module A::B::C is not (CPAN)
Different directories trees (core vs vendor).
2) Both perl modules are CPAN modules with
different perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_xxx) requirements
Vendor directory tree but different perl versions
requirements.
3) Both perl modules are CPAN modules with the
same perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_xxx) requirements
Removal order.
Perl module A::B::C should always own the A directory
(also owned by A::B) or not ?
jpo
jpo
- --
José Pedro Oliveira
* mailto: jpo(a)di.uminho.pt *
http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo *
* gpg fingerprint = F9B6 8D87 859D 1C94 48F0 84C0 9749 9EB5 91BD 851B *
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEhd9Il0metZG9hRsRArX5AJ4n/Dz3U9M+qU9ZM2fdIDnmecSUWwCgveK/
WjFIGezgDEIMHLu1pk9capA=
=qJ61
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----