Bug 1047658

Summary: RFE: own alternatives target /usr/bin/unison
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Rex Dieter <rdieter>
Component: unison240Assignee: Gregor Tätzner <gregor>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: gregor
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: FutureFeature, Patch
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-01-01 21:39:03 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
.spec patch to fix ownership of /usr/bin/unison alternatives target none

Description Rex Dieter 2014-01-01 16:07:56 UTC
Created attachment 844153 [details]
.spec patch to fix ownership of /usr/bin/unison alternatives target

Currently unison240 creates a /usr/bin/unison target via alternatives, but this file is currently not owned by rpm.

$ rpm -q -f /usr/bin/unison
file /usr/bin/unison is not owned by any package

The attached .spec patch is one approach to fix that.  Other packages providing unison alternatives (unison213, unison227) could be adjusted similarly.

Comment 1 Gregor Tätzner 2014-01-01 18:26:37 UTC
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #0)
> Currently unison240 creates a /usr/bin/unison target via alternatives, but
> this file is currently not owned by rpm.

is this actually an issue?

> 
> The attached .spec patch is one approach to fix that.  Other packages
> providing unison alternatives (unison213, unison227) could be adjusted
> similarly.

it seems weird to me to flag a symlink as config. How do other packages approach this topic?

Comment 2 Rex Dieter 2014-01-01 18:34:29 UTC
> is this actually an issue?

IMO, yes.  All files (with limited exceptions), should be owned and tracked.  I only noticed this after a user of mine installed unison240, but I had no way to tell where /usr/bin/unison came from.

> it seems weird to me to flag a symlink as config. 
> How do other packages approach this topic?

For the packages *I* own, I use %config, but either %config or %ghost may work here.  Without those, rpm -V, will complain that the file contents have changed.

Comment 3 Rex Dieter 2014-01-01 20:56:25 UTC
Looks like:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Alternatives

recommends the use of %ghost, so that is the better choice here.

Comment 4 Gregor Tätzner 2014-01-01 21:39:03 UTC
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #3)
> recommends the use of %ghost, so that is the better choice here.

allrighty then pushed to rawhide.