packages: etckeeper/etckeeper.spec - Up to 0.56

[Tomasz Pala]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 17:01:37 +0200, Pawel Golaszewski wrote:

>> %{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/%{name}
>> 
>> The folder for this does not exist unless bash-completion is installed, 
>> resulting in an rpm error.
> 
> 1. Make separate subpackage with completion files with proper requires 
>    (prefered method).

This is overkill.

> 2. Put %{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d to some "filesystem" or something 
>    package (unlikely).
> 
> Make your choice. IMO "1" is preffered one. Take a look at other packages 
> how to do it.

Once upon a time we got a very nice solution - if one doesn't have a
package shipping directory itself, he doesn't intend to use any of the
contained files, so We Do Not Care (about permissions). But then an evil
dragon came and invented 'directory dependencies' - since then every
peasant lives his life in fear, that some shitty dependency will
install things he doesn't want to use (and sometimes will kill his cow
as 'not needed now' - see my tmpwatch battles), and every knight in
kingdom must pray for the cursed single-file subpackages to perish.

Maybe, I'm going to repeat this question, maybe instead 'fixing'
packages by producing these sub-midgets or enforcing people to install
garbage, we simply remove the flawed directory dependency? Current RPM
is broken anyway, older one reported 'directory not empty - not
removing', now I got dozens of stumps (especially after some perl or
python modules) after each upgrade.

>> If there is a more graceful way to both package this file and not throw 
>> rpm errors without requiring bash-completion I would love to learn how.
> 
> Require bash_completion for directory only is insane. I can even not have 
> bash...

Yeah, it sucks.

-- 
Tomasz Pala <gotar at pld-linux.org>