Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 473627
bacula : Unowned directories
Last modified: 2008-12-01 14:51:16 EST
One or more directories are not included within this
package and/or its sub-packages:
=> bacula-common-2.4.3-3.fc11.i386 (rawhide-development-i386)
=> bacula-console-2.4.3-3.fc11.i386 (rawhide-development-i386)
=> bacula-console-bat-2.4.3-3.fc11.i386 (rawhide-development-i386)
=> bacula-console-gnome-2.4.3-3.fc11.i386 (rawhide-development-i386)
=> bacula-console-wxwidgets-2.4.3-3.fc11.i386 (rawhide-development-i386)
=> bacula-director-common-2.4.3-3.fc11.i386 (rawhide-development-i386)
=> bacula-traymonitor-2.4.3-3.fc11.i386 (rawhide-development-i386)
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which
does create that directory.
your script is broken AFAICS.
/etc/bacula is owned by the -common package. This should be required by the bacula subpackages.
About the other stuff however, you might be right. I'd have to check.
> /etc/bacula is owned by the -common package.
> This should be required by the bacula subpackages.
The sub-packages do not require the -common package.
(In reply to comment #2)
> > /etc/bacula is owned by the -common package.
> > This should be required by the bacula subpackages.
> The sub-packages do not require the -common package.
Yes, they do.
The logwatch bits in /etc are owned by logwatch, except for /etc/logwatch/conf/logfiles/bacula.conf and /etc/logwatch/conf/services/bacula.conf, owned by bacula-director-common.
I see no problem here. Andreas, do you concur?
> Yes, they do.
No, they don't.
Any now what? How about you give proof?
FWIW, I trust the automatic depsolving that is done here.
(In reply to comment #4)
> > Yes, they do.
> No, they don't.
> Any now what? How about you give proof?
[limb@fawkes services]$ rpm -q --whatrequires bacula-common
Attaching spec file.
> FWIW, I trust the automatic depsolving that is done here.
Created attachment 325282 [details]
I took a closer look and unfortunately, Michael is right.
The console subpackages do not own the /etc/bacula dir. The bacula-common
Easyfix would be to require the -common subpackage by the -client utilities as
well. I'd hate to see this done however as it pulls in much more then
The other solution, having several packages provide the same dir is not really
The third idea of further splitting up the bacula packages just for one dir is
stupid as well.
*shrug* However, as I don't really care we now have a further subpackage owning
exactly one directory...
Regarding the logwatch bits, added the necessary dependency...
I'm not triggering a build for this however. It's in CVS and will be included in the next build.