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
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle. Changing version to '31'.
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 It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained.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.
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 Fedora 31 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates.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.
Still an issue with rt-5.0.3-4.fc38.src.rpm.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rt/pull-request/1
(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.
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.
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.
It's mainly driven by a configuration option. See bug #2173051 comment #2.
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).
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.
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
(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.