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.
(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?
> 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.
Looks like: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Alternatives recommends the use of %ghost, so that is the better choice here.
(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.