Bug 131247

More precisely, I would suggest that these browser packages own both
the %{_libdir}/mozilla and %{_libdir}/mozilla/plugins directories, and
plugin packages would depend only on the actual plugin directory they
install stuff into, ie. %{_libdir}/mozilla/plugins.

For Fedora Core, I believe the affected browser packages would be
mozilla and kdebase (for konqueror).  epiphany already depends on
mozilla, so that could be left unchanged at least for now if you like.

For fedora.us, I will suggest this change to the firefox package if
this suggestion receives a warm welcome here :)

Created attachment 103410 [details]
Fix dir ownerships

In case of mozilla, the %{_libdir}/mozilla/plugins has been "owned" since a
long time ago, it seems.  However, there are a couple of unowned dirs in the
latest mozilla package, fix attached.

Bug 131667 has the patch implementing this for kdebase (konqueror).

An alternative solution:

Create a 'filesystem-mozilla' package owning these directories. Or
call it 'mozilla-plugin-base' or ...

As long as there's a solution that pulls in a compatible browser (so
that in this case, browser packages would depend on that new suggested
package), I don't care much about the implementation details.

My personal preference would be towards the simple directory ownership
approach in browsers though, because a package containing 2 empty
directories sounds a bit overkill to me.

In JPackage, we still need to base the dependency on a directory since
that's the closest to a cross-distribution approach there is AFAICT. 
(That does not "rule out" the separate package in comment 4 though as
long as the dependencies in browsers are in place.)

*** Bug 109791 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

I just made the plugin packages own the mozilla directory.  Is there a problem
with that approach?

Yes, there is a problem, see bug 131667 comment 3.  Please consider reverting
that change from the plugin package(s).

OK, I'll revert the change in the next release of the plugin package.  But why
do we need the ability to specify this dependency?  Why not just allow people to
install the plugin in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins, even if there is no browser
installed that uses plugins from that directory?

The plugin is not useful without a browser that uses it... and it's trivial to
implement the proper dependency ("Requires: %{_libdir}/mozilla/plugins") once
browser packages own these directories.

AFAIK all relevant browser packages now do implement that, the only thing left
in this particular bug would be to apply the patch from comment 2, and to add
the above dependency to plugin package(s).

The next release of the RHEL3 and RHEL4 SDK packages will not own
%{_libdir}/mozilla/plugins.  Does the FC4 Firefox package take ownership of
%{_libdir}/mozilla/plugins yet?

firefox-1.0.1-5 does indeed own /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins.

According to the changelog firefox owns it since 0.99-1.0RC1.2.

This still an issue for FC4?
We should fix this eventually in RHEL4 too.

Both the FC4 and RHEL4 versions of Firefox and Konqueror own /usr/lib/mozilla
and /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins, so I think we can close this now.

OK, everything fixed then.  Closing RAWHIDE.

Please see comment 11 and comment 2, there are a few unowned dirs in the mozilla
package.  (Not directly related to the plugins dir issue, but they're already
reported here, so...)

Sorry please open a new bug with a tested patch against latest rawhide.  caillon
is already too busy and will ignore anything that doesn't apply that he would
need to dig through many comments to find.