Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on a still to be determined date in the near future. The original upgrade date has been delayed.
Bug 131247 - browsers should take ownership of /usr/lib/mozilla
browsers should take ownership of /usr/lib/mozilla
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: mozilla (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Christopher Aillon
Ben Levenson
Depends On:
Blocks: FC4Blocker
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2004-08-30 10:28 EDT by Thomas Fitzsimmons
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:10 EST (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2005-04-27 05:39:41 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Fix dir ownerships (521 bytes, patch)
2004-09-02 18:46 EDT, Ville Skyttä
no flags Details | Diff

  None (edit)
Description Thomas Fitzsimmons 2004-08-30 10:28:03 EDT
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.2)

Description of problem:
For the Java plugin, and other plugin packages, we need a way to
express a dependency on "a web browser that uses plug-ins from 
/usr/lib/mozilla".  Ville Skytt� of jpackage.org suggests that all
browsers that use plugins from /usr/lib/mozilla should take ownership
of that directory.  Then plugin packages can depend on /usr/lib/mozilla.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. rpm -qf /usr/lib/mozilla

Actual Results:  /usr/lib/mozilla is not owned by any package.

Expected Results:  /usr/lib/mozilla should be owned by all browsers
that use plugins from that directory.

Additional info:
Comment 1 Ville Skyttä 2004-08-30 11:27:25 EDT
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 :)
Comment 2 Ville Skyttä 2004-09-02 18:46:39 EDT
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.
Comment 3 Ville Skyttä 2004-09-02 18:53:19 EDT
Bug 131667 has the patch implementing this for kdebase (konqueror).
Comment 4 Enrico Scholz 2004-09-03 09:57:41 EDT
An alternative solution:

Create a 'filesystem-mozilla' package owning these directories. Or
call it 'mozilla-plugin-base' or ...
Comment 5 Ville Skyttä 2004-09-03 13:40:33 EDT
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.)
Comment 6 Thomas Fitzsimmons 2004-09-13 17:36:13 EDT
*** Bug 109791 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 8 Thomas Fitzsimmons 2005-01-04 16:57:43 EST
I just made the plugin packages own the mozilla directory.  Is there a problem
with that approach?
Comment 9 Ville Skyttä 2005-01-04 17:10:51 EST
Yes, there is a problem, see bug 131667 comment 3.  Please consider reverting
that change from the plugin package(s).
Comment 10 Thomas Fitzsimmons 2005-01-04 19:26:06 EST
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?
Comment 11 Ville Skyttä 2005-01-05 01:12:24 EST
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).
Comment 14 Thomas Fitzsimmons 2005-03-09 16:13:59 EST
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?
Comment 15 Jay Turner 2005-03-10 02:19:44 EST
firefox-1.0.1-5 does indeed own /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins.
Comment 16 Ville Skyttä 2005-03-10 09:27:19 EST
According to the changelog firefox owns it since 0.99-1.0RC1.2.
Comment 17 Warren Togami 2005-03-29 03:32:44 EST
This still an issue for FC4?
We should fix this eventually in RHEL4 too.
Comment 18 Thomas Fitzsimmons 2005-03-31 21:28:15 EST
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.
Comment 19 Warren Togami 2005-04-01 00:07:33 EST
OK, everything fixed then.  Closing RAWHIDE.
Comment 20 Ville Skyttä 2005-04-02 10:44:50 EST
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...)
Comment 21 Warren Togami 2005-04-27 05:39:41 EDT
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.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.