Hide Forgot
Description of problem: systemtap and it's subpackages have several unowned directories: %{_libdir}/systemtap %{_libexecdir}/systemtap %{_datadirdir}/systemtap %{_datadirdir}/systemtap/tapset %{_datadirdir}/systemtap/tapsets (possibly more if you have all packages installed) Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): systemtap-1.6-1.fc15 Additional info: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
(In reply to comment #0) > Description of problem: > systemtap and it's subpackages have several unowned directories: > %{_libdir}/systemtap > %{_libexecdir}/systemtap These two we should fix. > %{_datadir}/systemtap > %{_datadir}/systemtap/tapset (fixed, assuming you meant %{_datadir}) These two are owned by the base systemtap package on my machine, so I'm not sure why your search would flag it. > %{_datadir}/systemtap/tapsets This one is due to bug #712726.
I don(In reply to comment #1) > These two are owned by the base systemtap package on my machine, so I'm not > sure why your search would flag it. Indeed, according to the spec they are owned. I no longer have systemtap installed on my machine and rpm reported the dirs unowned, so there are two options: - they were unowned in a previous version of the package - it's possible to install something that puts files there without installing systemtap.
(In reply to comment #2) > - it's possible to install something that puts files there without installing > systemtap. Indeed, repoquery -f '/usr/share/systemtap/tapset/*' shows several other packages that install .stp files for systemtap use. These are generally thought of as soft dependencies, where they don't want to force a systemtap requirement, but they want that available if you do have systemtap installed. I suppose these other packages should either split those into subpackages that depend on systemtap, or just share that directory ownership with us.
(In reply to comment #3) > I suppose these other packages should either split those into subpackages that > depend on systemtap, or just share that directory ownership with us. And FWIW, openjdk already demonstrates the latter option: $ repoquery -f '/usr/share/systemtap' | sort -u java-1.7.0-openjdk-devel-1:1.7.0.0-0.1.20110803.1.fc16.i686 java-1.7.0-openjdk-devel-1:1.7.0.0-0.1.20110803.1.fc16.x86_64 systemtap-0:1.6-1.fc16.x86_64 $ repoquery -f '/usr/share/systemtap/tapset' | sort -u java-1.7.0-openjdk-devel-1:1.7.0.0-0.1.20110803.1.fc16.i686 java-1.7.0-openjdk-devel-1:1.7.0.0-0.1.20110803.1.fc16.x86_64 systemtap-0:1.6-1.fc16.x86_64
(In reply to comment #3) > I suppose these other packages should either split those into subpackages that > depend on systemtap, or just share that directory ownership with us. I think sharing is fine.
(In reply to comment #1) > > %{_libdir}/systemtap > > %{_libexecdir}/systemtap > > These two we should fix. These are fixed in upstream commit 75ab1a70, and I also pushed them to Fedora's systemtap dist-git. I don't feel this is worth pushing out a build now, but they'll get fixed next time we do. (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #3) > > I suppose these other packages should either split those into subpackages that > > depend on systemtap, or just share that directory ownership with us. > > I think sharing is fine. So should we dupe this bug for each offender? For F16, that list is: $ diff -u <(repoquery -sf '/usr/share/systemtap/tapset' | sort -u) \ <(repoquery -sf '/usr/share/systemtap/tapset/*' | sort -u) --- /dev/fd/63 2011-10-18 15:19:03.945306530 -0700 +++ /dev/fd/62 2011-10-18 15:19:03.946306521 -0700 @@ -1,2 +1,9 @@ +glib2-2.30.0-2.fc16.src.rpm java-1.7.0-openjdk-1.7.0.0-0.1.20110803.1.fc16.src.rpm +libvirt-0.9.6-2.fc16.src.rpm +perl-5.14.1-187.fc16.src.rpm +perl-5.14.1-188.fc16.src.rpm +python-2.7.2-4.fc16.src.rpm +python3-3.2.1-1.fc16.src.rpm +qemu-0.15.0-5.fc16.src.rpm systemtap-1.6-1.fc16.src.rpm
upstream commit 75ab1a70 for the systemtap.spec changes from above.