Bug 1506655 - autoconf contains a config file under /usr
Summary: autoconf contains a config file under /usr
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: autoconf
Version: 27
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Pavel Raiskup
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1506935
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-10-26 13:52 UTC by Michal Schmidt
Modified: 2017-10-27 08:25 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
: 1506935 (view as bug list)
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-10-27 08:20:50 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 772999 0 unspecified CLOSED autoconf should install a config.site that favors lib64 on 64-bit machines 2021-02-22 00:41:40 UTC

Internal Links: 772999

Description Michal Schmidt 2017-10-26 13:52:13 UTC
Description of problem:
The autoconf package ships a file under /usr marked as a config file. This is against the Fedora Packaging Guidelines[1]:
  Don't use %config or %config(noreplace) under /usr. /usr is deemed to not
  contain configuration files in Fedora. 

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Configuration_files

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
autoconf-2.69-25.fc27.noarch

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. rpm -qc autoconf
2.
3.

Actual results:
/usr/share/config.site

Expected results:
No file under /usr should be listed.

Comment 1 Pavel Raiskup 2017-10-26 14:11:35 UTC
Hi Michal, thanks for the report.

The thing is that config.site is configuration file, to some extent.  Solution
would be to drop the %config attribute?  I tend to ack this, even though I'm
glad that `rpm -qc autoconf` gives the "hint".

Why is this actually problem?  I'm asking because you are asking for
compromise...  Yes, PackagingGuidelines mention the /usr && %config advice,
but the statement seems to be rather vague:

  Don't use %config or %config(noreplace) under /usr. /usr is deemed to not
  contain configuration files in Fedora.

While I would expect something like:

  Packages *can not* install ... under /usr.

Is this about share-able /usr mountpoint?  What issues existence of the file
actually causes?

Comment 2 Michal Schmidt 2017-10-26 14:57:53 UTC
Hi Pavel,

> The thing is that config.site is configuration file, to some extent. 
> Solution would be to drop the %config attribute?

Yes.

> I tend to ack this, even though I'm
> glad that `rpm -qc autoconf` gives the "hint".
> Why is this actually problem?

It's not that anything is broken by the file being marked as %config.
I want people to get used to not editing files under /usr. A hint that there's a config file under /usr goes against that idea.

> Is this about share-able /usr mountpoint?

I was thinking more of systems using rpm-ostree, but sure, a sharable /usr mount is nice.
Again, it's not outright broken. It just may lead people in a wrong direction.

Comment 3 Pavel Raiskup 2017-10-27 08:20:50 UTC
Ack.

FTR, configure accepts also also /usr/etc/config.site, but that's still
under /usr.  Should be fixed upstream so that --sysconfdir affects the
"user-configurable" location.

I'm removing %config attribute (the noreplace argument was not used
anyways, so the configuration file was replaced with updates anyways).

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/autoconf/c/0e943051ba402fa58f3c6f0087a1d615de584fb1?branch=master


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