[Rpm-ecosystem] [OM Cooker] Rpm conflicts on %ghost files

Per Øyvind Karlsen proyvind at moondrake.org
Wed Jul 1 10:45:25 UTC 2015

2015-06-28 22:24 GMT+02:00 Jeffrey Johnson <n3npq at me.com>:

> Sent from my iPad
> > On Jun 28, 2015, at 7:41 AM, Tomasz Paweł Gajc <tpgxyz at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dnia sobota, 27 czerwca 2015 15:06:10 Jeffrey Johnson pisze:
> >
> >> So either someone has added a file that shouldn't be in a package, or
> >> a file that was never packaged before is now being packaged.
> >>
> >> 73 de Jeff
> >
> > Jeff this issues is only visible on i586 imho this is a rpm bug.
> Yes but the fix for differing behavior is as likely to be teaching
> X86_64 to behave like i586 where you _STILL_ need to change
> packaging, not rpm.
> %ghost has many problems and is poorly designed.
> If %ghost for the same path is present in more than one package,
> that is already a packaging problem no different than any other
> file conflict. Choose one package to use %ghost, remove the other.
> If you don't have criteria for choosing, flip a coin: it really doesn't
> matter.
You don't think current existing behaviour of rpm, allowing %ghost files
packaged in multiplie packages to be installed without conflicting as the
right behaviour?

As I see the most correct behaviour would be, is for several packages to be
installed with same %ghost files without conflicting, while during erase of
packages, whenever last package with ownership of the %ghost file gets
uninstalled, the %ghost file should be removed with it..

I'm a bit perplexed about potentially different opinions and implementation
behaviours around there otherwise as well, so I'm CC'ing this to
rpm-ecosystem@ for broader input...

Per Øyvind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-ecosystem/attachments/20150701/53857e16/attachment.html>

More information about the Rpm-ecosystem mailing list