On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 13:39 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 03:58:26PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Wed, 24.11.10 03:02, Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > A question I'd have when looking over a proposed packaging guideline would > > > be: why %ghost the directories? Why not include the directories as normal > > > but add the tmpfiles.d step in addition? > > > > Well, because rpm has introduced %ghost for cases like this, and everybody > > else uses it for that. > > > %ghost is definitely suitable for files but I'm not so sure it's suitable > for directories. It certainly leads to more complex spec files to use > %ghost on the directory for really no gain that I'm aware of. %ghost does > %two things with a file: It tells rpm that it doesn't need to install the > file. It tells rpm to not track the contents of the file while still > tracking the permissions and ownerhsip of the file.
It's also worth noting that %ghost tells rpm -V that it's ok if the file/dir. is missing (or changes type) ... which we _don't_ want to happen. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
