Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=955088
Mario Blättermann <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Mario Blättermann <[email protected]> --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > You have added a skeleton config file. But what's the advantage of having an > > empty global config file? > > src/settings.c and src/vfs/vfs-file-task.c says (seems to be saying) that > spacefm sometimes (when run with privilege mode) writes > /etc/spacefm/spacefm.conf, so at least /etc/spacefm should be owned and > creating skeleton spacefm.conf is preferable to show that rpm "tracks" this > file. > > Note that it seems that when run as privilege mode spacefm may create > /etc/spacefm/%s-as-root (%s is substituted with each user), however %s may > change in various ways and I don't think (and I cannot find good way) to own > this type of files. OK, let's assume the package owns /etc/spacefm/. This folder is empty at install time, but once SpaceFM has stored any data there, the package manager is unable to remove the folder when uninstalling SpaceFM. Usually, an application ships a global configuration file directly, and this folder has to marked with %config(noreplace) in the file list then. And in this case the folder can't even be removed so that it remains on the system anyway. However, your targeted behavior doesn't break anything, so the <PACKAGE IS APPROVED>. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nPxHljGEkG&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
