Thorsten Kukuk schrieb:
On Mon, Dec 10, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Thorsten Kukuk schrieb:
[...] In general, %ghost for tmpfiles on tmpfs doesn't make any sense and only makes later a lot of trouble. This should be completly
For example?
Ever tried to replace a %ghost entry with a real file?
Can you give an example of the use case you see breaking?
forbidden. And robustness is here more important than the wish of
Well, if robustness is the main argument then a method that requires packagers to maintain file information in two places and to add fragile scripting sections hardly reaches that goal.
Ok, with your tmpfiles/%ghost approach, we have this method, which requires packages to maintain file information in two places.
As long as a spec file contains a %files section, that is the canonical place for file information and won't go away. tmpfiles config means a second place. That is independent of potential duplication of information. Anyways, back to the part you decided not to quote. It's already possible to query binary rpms for their config files, documentation, licenses etc. So it doesn't look absurd to expect information about locations where a package dumps runtime data in rpm as well. cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.com/ SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org