pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: pcp updates: qa, docs, fixes

To: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: pcp updates: qa, docs, fixes
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 09:02:59 -0400
Cc: pcp <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1283758678.17040206.1428908657815.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <765204112.14979385.1428575388121.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx> <y0mk2xk566h.fsf@xxxxxxxx> <1283758678.17040206.1428908657815.JavaMail.zimbra@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Hi -

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 03:04:17AM -0400, Nathan Scott wrote:
> [...]
> > %dir /usr/share/pcp/webapps
> > 
> > (whether or not that duplicates pcp-webapi).  That way, the webjs
> > stuff is not forced to match to any particular version of pcp, as
> > technically indeed it does not need to.
> 
> Michael Schwendt pointed out (over in RHBZ 1204467) that there is
> actually a dependency on pcp, and in this particular case, on both
> the base pcp and the pcp-webapi packages - he provided this link:
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
> 
> So, /usr/share/pcp comes from package "pcp" and /usr/share/pcp/webapps
> comes from package "pcp-webapi".  [...]

The confusion here is between "unowned" and "multiply-owned"
directories.  /usr/share/pcp and /usr/share/pcp/webapps are both
multiply-ownable by the main pcp rpm and the -webjs subrpm: we can put
both %dir's in both %files lists.


> [...]
> > (Similarly, the "pcp-libs = %{version}-%{release}" explicit
> > dependencies should be dropped throughout the .spec file, relying
> > instead on rpm's solib/soname analysis magic.)
> 
> This has come up before - the issue is rpmdiff reports problems if
> this explicit versioned dependency is removed.  If that has now been
> verified as resolved, then yep, send through a patch to remove 'em.

rpmdiff supplies warnings when it thinks something may be wrong.  We
waive them when rpmdiff is mistaken.


- FChE

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>