Bug 1731700 - rt depends on files/directories from non-standard locations
Summary: rt depends on files/directories from non-standard locations
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: rt
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ralf Corsepius
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1731683 2180842
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-07-21 11:11 UTC by Igor Raits
Modified: 2024-01-29 16:53 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-01-29 16:53:14 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Igor Raits 2019-07-21 11:11:16 UTC
Hello,

Fedora Packaging Guidelines allow dependencies only on files/directories from /usr/bin, /usr/sbin and /etc directories[0].
Your package depends on files/directories outside of those. See below for more information about package/dependencies.

---
rt-4.4.4-2.fc31.noarch:
  - /usr/share/fonts/google-droid/DroidSansFallback.ttf
  - /usr/share/fonts/google-droid/DroidSans.ttf
rt-4.4.4-2.fc31.src:
  - /usr/share/fonts/google-droid/DroidSansFallback.ttf
  - /usr/share/fonts/google-droid/DroidSans.ttf
---

Please correct those or provide reason why is it correct.
It is very important to not download huge filelists.xml just because few packages in distribution depend on non-standard paths.

Thanks for cooperation!


[0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_dependencies

Comment 1 Ben Cotton 2019-08-13 16:49:29 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle.
Changing version to '31'.

Comment 2 Ben Cotton 2020-11-03 15:21:15 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 31 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 31 on 2020-11-24.
It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer
maintained.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 '31'.

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 31 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 3 Ben Cotton 2020-11-24 18:26:38 UTC
Fedora 31 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2020-11-24. Fedora 31 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 4 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2023-02-27 12:15:31 UTC
Still an issue with rt-5.0.3-4.fc38.src.rpm.

Comment 5 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2023-02-27 12:22:05 UTC
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rt/pull-request/1

Comment 6 Ralf Corsepius 2023-02-27 15:08:23 UTC
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #4)
> Still an issue with rt-5.0.3-4.fc38.src.rpm.

This has never been an issue. This BZ is just silly.

Comment 7 Petr Pisar 2023-02-27 15:57:32 UTC
The issue is that for resolving the arbitrary-file dependency, a package manager needs to have a complete list of all files of all packages of a repository. Such list is large (3 times than a list of RPM provides/requires and files located in the /usr/bin, /usr/sbin/, /etc). Downloading and processing it take time. But users wants fast package managers. That's why Fedora aim to eradicate the kind of dependencies you have now in the rt package. E.g. DNF5 which is scheduled to replace DNF4 in Fedora 39 does not download the complete file list if not needed. Your package basically undermines this pursuit.

Comment 8 Jason Tibbitts 2023-02-27 16:05:06 UTC
Isn't the extra info is only downloaded if you're installing or querying this very niche leaf package?  Or does the mere existence of a file dependency anywhere in the distribution cause DNF to download extra file lists?  The latter would seem to be something of a bug.

Comment 9 Petr Pisar 2023-02-27 16:13:08 UTC
It's mainly driven by a configuration option. See bug #2173051 comment #2.

Comment 10 Jason Tibbitts 2023-02-27 16:25:03 UTC
So the perfectly valid (though discouraged) behavior results failed dependencies unless a non-default configuration option is set.  That's 100% a bug; there's simply no other way to state it.

If this breakage goes through the proper feature process, with proper approval and an accompanying guidelines change then sure, this would be a "have to fix" thing.  But this is just a bug that should be fixed in the proper place (which is dnf, not in the perfectly valid packages).

Comment 11 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2023-02-28 16:16:00 UTC
Let's discuss behaviour of dnf5 in the dnf5 bug…

In the context of this package, what Petr wrote.

Let's say that 'rt' had a dependency on 'foo' (Requires:foo), and it turns out that
'foo' isn't really necessary for anything that 'rt does, but it still takes up 50 MB
on disk. It would be fair to ask the maintainer to drop the dependency. Especially
when it turns out that 'foo' is updated very often, really every day.

Comment 12 Vít Ondruch 2023-03-01 14:28:53 UTC
I can see Ralf's point here and I think that the current construct best describes the intention of the unbundling.

However, while having zero knowledge about the package, I wonder if symlinks are the right solution. It seems to me that in this case the fonts can be considered web assets and should follow the appropriate guideline [1]. That means these should be served from the proper place and just the common virtual font requires should be used instead.


[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Web_Assets#Fonts

Comment 13 "FeRD" (Frank Dana) 2023-11-21 01:50:31 UTC
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #12)
> 
> However, while having zero knowledge about the package, I wonder if symlinks
> are the right solution. It seems to me that in this case the fonts can be
> considered web assets and should follow the appropriate guideline [1]. That
> means these should be served from the proper place and just the common
> virtual font requires should be used instead.
> 
> 
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Web_Assets#Fonts

I've submitted https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rt/pull-request/2 which makes changes along the lines of what Vit outlined here. It sets the internal fontpath of the package to /usr/share/fonts/google-droid-sans-fonts/ instead of using the symlinked indirection via /usr/share/rt/fonts/, and depends on font(droidsans) and font(droidsansfallback) instead of using filesystem paths.


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