Bug 225680
Summary: | Merge Review: desktop-backgrounds | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
Component: | desktop-backgrounds | Assignee: | Jef Spaleta <jspaleta> |
Status: | CLOSED EOL | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 23 | CC: | christoph.wickert, martin.sourada, mattdm, mclasen |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2016-12-20 11:55:41 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
2007-01-31 17:56:34 UTC
remove from doc section %dir %{_datadir}/gnome-background-properties add Requires: gnome-backgrounds because you place an xml file down in /usr/share/gnome-background-properties/ which is already owned by gnome-backgrounds package. As per the review guidelines, directories can not be owned by multiple packages. -jef (In reply to comment #1) > remove from doc section > %dir %{_datadir}/gnome-background-properties > > add Requires: gnome-backgrounds > > because you place an xml file down in /usr/share/gnome-background-properties/ > which is already owned by gnome-backgrounds package. > > As per the review guidelines, directories can not be owned by multiple packages. > > -jef Ah.. This guidelines should read as: ---------------------------------------------------- The directory must not be owned if there is other package * which owns the directory * and the package _is required_ by this package ---------------------------------------------------- So this package should not own %{_datadir}/gnome-background-properties if this package _really_ requires gnome-backgrounds. Actually my system has gnome-backgrounds-basic but does not have gnome-backgrounds. So in this case this package _must_ own %{_datadir}/gnome-background-properties . s|gnome-backgrounds-basic|desktop-backgrounds-basic| lets be very very clear http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. right now.. this rule is broken... both packages own the directory. This is not allowed under the current packaging review guidance. It does not matter that the current depchains allow it. As a matter of policy this is broken behavior. This behavior is cleaned up by removing the ownership of the directory from one package and making it require the other. -jef Yes, so this "other packages" means "other packages required by this package", not "other packages not really required by this package". So having two directories owned by several packages is actually _allowed_ . The more important thing is that "every directories should be owned at any install option somehow". So this package does not need gnome-backgrounds, then this package _must_ own %{_datadir}/gnome-background-properties. This is a _MUST_. Oops.. s|two directories|a directory| your interpretation completely disregards the rule-of-thumb example providing in the review guidance. It's an established policy, a policy which was re-affirmed in discussion at FUDCon among multiple reviewers and attendant members of the packaging committee. If you want to have a wider discussion of its interpretation, feel free to bring it up in the appropriate mailinglist. Having a running debate in this review ticket is counter-productive. If the maintainer feels there is a particular need to break this particular policy, that maintainer can provide a justification as per the review guidance. good day No, this policy is not changed actually. Again, * this package does not require gnome-backgrounds * Also my system does not have gnome-backgrounds Please read carefully the section "File and Directory Ownership" of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines . http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines only shows the summary. re: comment #5 'So having two directories owned by several packages is actually_allowed_' Mamoru, please read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines again: - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. This means that each directory not listed in the FHS can have only one owner. (In reply to comment #10) > - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not > create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does > create that directory. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly > in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard. > > > This means that each directory not listed in the FHS can have only one owner. No, this means that there is no need to have an explicit dependency on filesystem even if filesystem owns some of the directories used by the package. okay... instead of having a sidebar conversation in a bug ticket... it is time to take this to the mailinglist for general discussion. Clearly there is a difference of opinion. How about we spare the poor package maintainer the bloody details of this, and move this to the fedora-extras-list for discussion. I sincerely invite Mamoru Tasaka to start a thread on fedora-extras-list concerning the matter. And I would encourage anyone with an opinion to participate in the mailinglist discussion. Doing a prolonged discussion in here, is counter-productive. -jef I always check fedora-devel fedora-extras fedora-maintainers fedora-list fedora-packaging etc as much as I can. However always the discussion is held on midnight... (I live in Japan, EST + 14h) I brought up this issue here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00308.html there was no definitive answer. This issue is still open. In the review I do I insist that no directory should be owned and I let the packager the choice to own the directory or depend on the not-really needed package. Maybe this issue should be risen once again on another list. Preferences show be visible again with gnome-menus-2.17.91-2.fc7 Argh, wrong bug. Sorry In the meantime, we have decided that desktop-backgrounds-basic should own /usr/share/backgrounds, and thus we've added a dependency on desktop-backgrounds-basic to gnome-backgrounds. Consequently, desktop-backgrounds-basic should own /usr/share/gnome-background-properties, too. Mass reassigning all merge reviews to their component. For more details, see this FESCO ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1269 If you don't know what merge reviews are about, please see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Merge_Reviews How to handle this bug is left to the discretion of the package maintainer. This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 23 development cycle. Changing version to '23'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 23 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 23 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora23 This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '23'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. Fedora 23 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-12-20. Fedora 23 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |