Bug 804452

Summary: Let package place file in a separate directory than /etc/
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Michael S. <misc>
Component: prelinkAssignee: Orphan Owner <extras-orphan>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 23CC: jakub, jrowens.fedora
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Reopened
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-12-18 17:51:14 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Michael S. 2012-03-18 21:47:07 UTC
Description of problem:

A package wanting to disable prelink for some files will place it in /etc/prelink.conf.d/. Doing this will trigger a rpmlint warning if the file is not marked as %config. But since the file are not %config file, that's incorrect to mark them as such.

So to solve that cleanly, I would suggest to add a directory in /usr/share, like /usr/share/prelink/conf.d/ where packages can place their own snippet of configuration, freeing /etc/prelink.conf.d/ for the administrator.

There is around 5 packages concerned ( and soon 6 ), so that's not a big deal but the bug is on the other hand rather easy to fix ( just create the directory, and add it to the prelink configuration ).

Comment 1 J. Randall Owens 2012-07-16 03:40:14 UTC
If Michael's suggestion is accepted, you might also consider whether the new directory, whether /usr/share/prelink/conf.d/ or elsewhere, should be owned by prelink, or transferred to the filesystem package.  After all, some of us don't like having prelink installed, but we still get files in (currently) /etc/prelink.conf.d/, so the directory is created but unowned, and won't be removed if we later remove the package(s) with file(s) there.  For instance, right now, I have no prelink installed, but grass-6.4.2-2.fc17 has a /etc/prelink.conf.d/grass-64.conf, so:

$ rpm -qf /etc/prelink.conf.d/
file /etc/prelink.conf.d is not owned by any package

Even if you don't take Michael's suggestion, this would still be a good idea, but then it would be a separate bug.

Comment 2 Fedora End Of Life 2013-07-03 22:49:22 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 17 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 17. 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 WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '17'.

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 prior to Fedora 17's end of life.

Bug Reporter:  Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 17 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 to Fedora 17's end of life.

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.

Comment 3 Michael S. 2013-07-03 23:45:57 UTC
Still valid

Comment 4 Fedora End Of Life 2015-01-09 17:04:36 UTC
This message is a notice that Fedora 19 is now at end of life. Fedora 
has stopped maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 19. It is 
Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no 
longer maintained. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now this bug will
be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '19'.

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 19 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.

Comment 5 Fedora End Of Life 2015-02-17 14:10:40 UTC
Fedora 19 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2015-01-06. Fedora 19 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.

Comment 6 J. Randall Owens 2015-02-17 22:04:59 UTC
And still valid, as far as I can see, three years later.

Comment 7 Jan Kurik 2015-07-15 15:10:38 UTC
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

Comment 8 Fedora Admin XMLRPC Client 2015-07-25 19:30:19 UTC
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database.  Reassigning to the new owner of this component.

Comment 9 Fedora End Of Life 2016-11-24 10:38:10 UTC
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.

Comment 10 J. Randall Owens 2016-12-18 17:51:14 UTC
Since prelink was retired in F23, might as well properly close this bug now.