Bug 501518
| Summary: | Rfe: Creating of a filesystem subpackage | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jochen Schmitt <jochen> |
| Component: | heartbeat | Assignee: | Kevin Fenzi <kevin> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | kevin, lhh, redhat-bugzilla |
| 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: | 2009-08-03 15:58:16 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: | |||
It seems overkill to make a filesystem package just for one single directory. ;( Perhaps drbdlinks could also own this directory? I think this is another case of: " Although the rule of thumb is the same: own all the directories you create but none of the directories of packages you depend on, there are several instances where it's desirable for multiple packages to own a directory." heartbeat doesn't require drbdlinks and drbdlinks doesn't require heartbeat. What do you think? Interesting idea which makes sense to me. Others? From the conversation on #fedora-devel at Freenode: [01:15:47] < rsc> nirik: ideas for the /etc/ha.d thing? [01:16:10] < nirik> my idea was to have them both own it. [01:16:24] < nirik> Splitting out a filesystem package for one dir seems like overkill to me. [01:20:08] < rsc> nirik: I could create a drbdlinks-heartbeat subpackage, but that also seems to be overkill for a single symlink [01:20:34] < nirik> yeah, whats the drawback to both owning it? should work I would think. [01:21:03] < rsc> nirik: if we can do that, it would be perfect to me. But guidelines etc.? [01:21:49] < nirik> well, I think it's ok guidelines. Look at the packageguidelines page where it talks about directory ownership. I think this is not the same as the examples there, but is similar. [01:23:55] < rsc> nirik: you're right, the example is closed to it. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership at point 2. I decided to depend with drbdlinks on heartbeat, as this seems to be the most common setup when looking around. ok, Can we close this bug now? Yes, we can. I have reopend this bug, because I have done some work to implemnent a separate filesystem subpackage on your package and have checked in in the devel branch. Why? There's no reason for it. drbdlinks just requires heartbeat. The filesystem package is just one directory. It diverges from upstream packaging and all other rpm versions. Is there any reason to have this? Please revert or tell me at least why? I'm also lacking the need for this, because drbdlinks simply will depend on heartbeat in Fedora as this is the most common setup, as far as I got told. I don't see any need to change this behaviour. I don't think there is any need for a fs package at this time. Can we go ahead and close this now? Yes, please. |
On BZ #401130 we reviewing a package which contains a subdirectory of %{_sysconfdir}/ha.d in the %files stanza without heatbeat may be required for this package. Because regarding of the packaging guuidlines each file/directory should owned by a package, I want to suggest the creation of the filesystem subpackage for heatbeat.