On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:48:29PM +0200, Matthias Saou wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote :
> On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 01:36:06PM +0200, Matthias Saou wrote:
> > Axel Thimm wrote :
> >
> > > > Nothing fancy. Just a simple "service" to have run on
startup, control
> > > > with chkconfig and service. I don't think "Requires:
initscripts" would
> > > > improve nor fix anything, but I wanted an authoritative answer to be
> > > > 100% sure :-)
> > >
> > > Well, the authoritative answer might be that accroding to the
> > > guidelines you should add it, but given the precedent of a ton of
> > > other packages not doing it, either the ton of packages are broken
> > > (unlikely) or the guidelines need adjustment/exceptions.
> > >
> > > So if this is stalling your work we should have a quickvote on list or
> > > in the channel today. Perhaps it would help if you submit a diff to
> > > the guideline text.
> >
> > Well, I'm not in favour of adding the requirement, so I'm not really
> > wanting to submit guideline changes either ;-)
>
> But, if I understand you correctly the current guidelines would force
> you to add it, no?
Nope. The current guidelines don't mention anything about this AFAICT.
It's the reviewer of my package who thinks it should be added, and had
it confirmed by someone on IRC (which isn't something I'd consider
trustworthy!).
Well, we do have guidelines on how to deal with file/directory
ownerships that try to manage not to orphan anything and not to
over-own as well.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-a5931a7372c4a0006...
But I guess it's a matter of interpretation as well as understanding
that guidelines != law.
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net