Just to be clear: the directory ownership page says something like "if
you have multiple packages that use the same directory and do not depend
on a common package that owns it they can all own this directory in
parallel".
But with fonts we have cases where
1. the common package exists for other reasons, or
2 it's only there to own the common directory.
In case 2. the guidelines clearly allow dropping common and using
multiple ownership. My problem is case 1.: is it ok for each subpackage
to own the directory it installs fonts to, even though it depends on a
common package that already owns it for other reasons (for example, to
put core fonts indexes in it)?
Because making the font subpackage macro auto-own the font dir in all
cases is trivial, would simplify the templates and avoid packaging
errors, but detecting the presence of a common subpackage to avoid the
auto-owning in that case is *not* trivial at all.
NB: in all this discussion the "common" subpackage is created from the
same srpm and never shared with subpackages from another srpm
--
Nicolas Mailhot
Show replies by date