7:11 a.m.
Hello packagers,
I have problems interpreting Packaging Guidelines section File and
Directory Ownership [1] for icons application place in
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor. I ran into this during package review for
dosbox-x [2], but I think the issue is more general than that, because
many applications add their icons to the (default, fallback) hicolor theme.
So the package places application's icon to
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/dosbox-x.svg. From the
guidelines, it is clear that for all directories in the chain, one of
the following has to be true:
1. Package owns the directory
2. A dependency package owns the directory
3. _filesystem_, _man_ or "other explicitly created -filesystem
package" own the directory
Item 3 takes care of %{_datadir}/icons part, because that is included in
_filesystem_. The remainder hicolor/scalable/apps is unclear for me.
Method 1 could be used. But there is also package _hicolor-icon-theme_.
Is that package an "explicitly created -filesystem package", so method 3
could be used? That would feel natural, because hicolor is the fallback
theme that must exist according to freedesktop.org specification.
Related but separate question about the guidelines: Section Unowned
Directories:Inaccessible Directories [3] discusses a problem that is
only relevant to Fedora < 9 and RHEL < 5.3. It does not really contain
any information that is relevant today. Should that section simply be
removed?
Otto
[1]:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_dire...
[2]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919639
[3]:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirector...
7:47 a.m.
New subject: Directory ownership of %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
On 28. 03. 21 14:11, Otto Urpelainen wrote:> Item 3 takes care of
%{_datadir}/icons part, because that is included in
_filesystem_. The remainder hicolor/scalable/apps is unclear for me.
Method 1
could be used. But there is also package _hicolor-icon-theme_. Is that package
an "explicitly created -filesystem package", so method 3 could be used? That
would feel natural, because hicolor is the fallback
theme that must exist according to freedesktop.org specification.
Yes. hicolor-icon-theme acts like an "other explicitly created -filesystem
package" here. It only contains the directories, cache and triggers.
Maybe we should explicitly mention it in the guidelines, because it is a very
common situation.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
7:55 a.m.
New subject: Directory ownership of %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
Miro Hrončok kirjoitti 28.3.2021 klo 15.47:
On 28. 03. 21 14:11, Otto Urpelainen wrote:> Item 3 takes care of
%{_datadir}/icons part, because that is included in
> _filesystem_. The remainder hicolor/scalable/apps is unclear for me.
> Method 1 could be used. But there is also package
> _hicolor-icon-theme_. Is that package an "explicitly created
> -filesystem package", so method 3 could be used? That would feel
> natural, because hicolor is the fallback
> theme that must exist according to freedesktop.org specification.
Yes. hicolor-icon-theme acts like an "other explicitly created
-filesystem package" here. It only contains the directories, cache and
triggers.
Maybe we should explicitly mention it in the guidelines, because it is a
very common situation.
Thank you, that makes sense. I will prepare a pull request to the
guidelines shortly. And also for fedora-review (if feasible) so it would
stop complaining about this situation.
Otto
3:08 p.m.
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 2:48 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 28. 03. 21 14:11, Otto Urpelainen wrote:> Item 3 takes care of
%{_datadir}/icons part, because that is included in
> _filesystem_. The remainder hicolor/scalable/apps is unclear for me. Method 1
> could be used. But there is also package _hicolor-icon-theme_. Is that package
> an "explicitly created -filesystem package", so method 3 could be used?
That
> would feel natural, because hicolor is the fallback
> theme that must exist according to freedesktop.org specification.
Yes. hicolor-icon-theme acts like an "other explicitly created -filesystem
package" here. It only contains the directories, cache and triggers.
Maybe we should explicitly mention it in the guidelines, because it is a very
common situation.
Weird, I was under the impression that to fix the "unowned directory
problem" you had to "just" add "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme" to
the
package shipping the icons. All my GUI application packages that ship
their own icons do that. Why would that dependency not be necessary?
Fabio
3:23 p.m.
New subject: Directory ownership of %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 2:48 PM Miro Hrončok
<mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Weird, I was under the impression that to fix the "unowned directory
problem" you had to "just" add "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme"
to
the
package shipping the icons.
That is correct.
All my GUI application packages that ship
their own icons do that. Why would that dependency not be necessary?
I think we are misunderstanding each other here.
5:11 p.m.
New subject: Directory ownership of %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
Miro Hrončok kirjoitti 28.3.2021 klo 23.23:
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 2:48 PM Miro Hrončok
<mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Weird, I was under the impression that to fix the "unowned directory
> problem" you had to "just" add "Requires:
hicolor-icon-theme" to
> the
> package shipping the icons.
That is correct.
> All my GUI application packages that ship
> their own icons do that. Why would that dependency not be necessary?
I think we are misunderstanding each other here.
So the correct method is "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme". The reason I
initially understood this differently was this:
1. the guidelines give _filesystem_ and "other explicitly created
filesystem packages" the same standing in this phrase: "any directories
owned by the filesystem, man, or other explicitly created -filesystem
packages"
2. _filesystem_ is not given special treatment anywhere
3. you do not do "Requires: filesystem" to get /usr/bin created
Which sounds like a contrived argument, but really I really was just
trying to figure out how it should be done.
I already opened a pull request to clarify this, I have to redo it.
Otto
2:05 a.m.
New subject: Directory ownership of %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
On 29. 03. 21 0:11, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
Miro Hrončok kirjoitti 28.3.2021 klo 23.23:
>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 2:48 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>
>> Weird, I was under the impression that to fix the "unowned directory
>> problem" you had to "just" add "Requires:
hicolor-icon-theme" to
>> the
>> package shipping the icons.
>
> That is correct.
>
>> All my GUI application packages that ship
>> their own icons do that. Why would that dependency not be necessary?
>
> I think we are misunderstanding each other here.
So the correct method is "Requires: hicolor-icon-theme". The reason I initially
understood this differently was this:
1. the guidelines give _filesystem_ and "other explicitly created filesystem
packages" the same standing in this phrase: "any directories owned by the
filesystem, man, or other explicitly created -filesystem packages"
2. _filesystem_ is not given special treatment anywhere
3. you do not do "Requires: filesystem" to get /usr/bin created
Which sounds like a contrived argument, but really I really was just trying to
figure out how it should be done.
I already opened a pull request to clarify this, I have to redo it.
OK, I now see where I made this more confusing.
Let me clarify:
1) hicolor-icon-theme "acts" like a filesystem package
2) except you need to Require it
Many other packages work like this (e.g. python-jupyter-filesystem, python3-jaraco).
------
Random idea: Let's have a database of those and generate the requirement on them
automatically?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
8:21 a.m.
New subject: Directory ownership of %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
Miro Hrončok kirjoitti 29.3.2021 klo 10.05:
On 29. 03. 21 0:11, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
>
> Which sounds like a contrived argument, but really I really was just
> trying to figure out how it should be done.
>
> I already opened a pull request to clarify this, I have to redo it.
OK, I now see where I made this more confusing.
Let me clarify:
1) hicolor-icon-theme "acts" like a filesystem package
2) except you need to Require it
Many other packages work like this (e.g. python-jupyter-filesystem,
python3-jaraco).
No, I was confused from the start, all the discussion here is making it
more clear. Here is the pull request attempting to word the guidelines
better:
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1061
Random idea: Let's have a database of those and generate the
requirement
on them automatically?
I might take a look at some point, for fun mainly.
Otto
9:33 a.m.
New subject: Directory ownership of %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
Thanks for sharing this interesting and informative information
High Adventure
https://highadventure.in/
1020
days inactive
1118
days old
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
8 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Fabio Valentini -
High Adventure -
Miro Hrončok -
Otto Urpelainen