http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=971960 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=971960#c2 Ondrej Holecek changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |oholecek@suse.com --- Comment #2 from Ondrej Holecek --- Do we really want to fix it this way rather then on zypp side? I have the same problem with i.e. perl modules, python. I mean, I'm ok accepting SR, but 1) it kind of clutter the spec (personal feeling), and 2) this isn't limited to PA, but seems to me as rather generic problem. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=971960 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=971960#c4 Björn Voigt changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bjoernv@arcor.de --- Comment #4 from Björn Voigt --- (In reply to Lars Müller from comment #0)

This leads to empty directories left behind when pulse get upgraded while one of the sub-packaged is still installed in the old version.

To handle this cleanly we have to add

%dir %{_libdir}/pulse-%{drvver} %dir %{_libdir}/pulse-%{drvver}/modules

to any %files module-* sub-package.

A submit request follows.

The downside of such changes is, that changes to the directory options (e.g. changed permissions, owner/group) have to be done in all packages which share the same directories. If this is not done or if the user only installs some updated RPM packages, the directories have different options from different packages and the last updated/installed package wins. Is may be also a bad style. But "RPM Guide" says nothing about this issue: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/RPM... https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/pdf/RPM_... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=971960 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=971960#c6 --- Comment #6 from Björn Voigt --- I think, the cleanup mechanism should work like this 1) Build the list ORPMs of old packages to be updated by Zypp 2) Extract the directory list of ORPMs packages and save the list as ORPMDirs in shell script syntax: rpm -qlv package ... | grep ^d | cut -c 68- | sort -t/ -u >> ORPMDirs 3) Build the list NRPMs of new packages (downloaded packages for the update) in shell script syntax: rpm -qplv package.rpm ... | grep ^d | cut -c 68- | sort -t/ -u >> NRPMDirs 4) Compare the lists ORPMDirs and NRPMDirs and build a list of all directories from ORPMDirs without NRPMDirs as DDirs in shell script syntax: diff -u ORPMDirs NRPMDirs | grep ^-/ | sort -t/ -u > DDirs 5) Try to delete the directories from DDirs (deepest directories first) The RPM queries will have some performance impact. But I think, Zypp already queries the RPM package list, e.g. for detection of possible conflicting files. The management of the directory lists is probably lightweight, because there are not so much directories. Some error correction mechanisms have to be developed e.g. in case a package does not install. If multiple packages declared the same directory with %dir then it's unclear, if it's legal to delete the empty directories. Zypp should do the same there as RPM. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=971960 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=971960#c8 Lars Müller changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #8 from Lars Müller --- Merged into the pulse package. If there are more with the same defect pattern please reopen and list the actual packages which needs attention or file new bugs. Naming the remaining issues 'generic problems' isn't something we're able to work on. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.