On Wed, 1 May 2024 12:49:32 -0500, W. Michael Petullo wrote:
> This clean up process has been going on since Fedora 1.
FWIW, my mass-filings of "unowned directory" bugzilla tickets has had poor
responses by packagers eventually and therefore has been discontinued.
Instead, a section has been inc
Dne 01. 05. 24 v 7:20 odp. Christoph Karl via devel napsal(a):
*) Removal or Upgrade of RPMs/distribution should not left files behind.
Two cases where files are intentionaly left behind:
1) configuration files
This can be handled by:
rpmconf --all --conf
2) %ghost files - usually log fil
Hi!
Am 01.05.24 um 19:58 schrieb Jens-Ulrik Petersen:
On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 1:21 AM Christoph Karl via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
I tried to find out which files on my upgraded fc40 installation are not
installed via dnf/rpm.
The list is surprisingly long.
Perhaps you co
On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 1:21 AM Christoph Karl via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> I tried to find out which files on my upgraded fc40 installation are not
> installed via dnf/rpm.
> The list is surprisingly long.
>
Perhaps you could upload the list to fedorapeople or somewhere?
Ma
> I tried to find out which files on my upgraded fc40 installation are not
> installed via dnf/rpm.
> The list is surprisingly long.
> Main reasons are symlinks and directories not defined in the spec file.
> A quick check shows that this is also the case with a fresh installation.
>
> I see three
Hi!
I tried to find out which files on my upgraded fc40 installation are not
installed via dnf/rpm.
The list is surprisingly long.
Main reasons are symlinks and directories not defined in the spec file.
A quick check shows that this is also the case with a fresh installation.
I see three reason
