https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970619
--- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- > The azure-common package is required by the most amount of SDK libraries, so > we could have the base azure directory owned by this package. Would that work? It would work, although it seems like you would have to introduce some otherwise-unnecessary artificial dependencies on this package. One way to avoid pulling in the full contents of this (admittedly small package) to create a directory would be to create a -filesystem package; that seems overkill for only one directory. I think the approach of co-owning any namespace directories would work well here. That ought to just need this added: > # Co-owned namespace package directory > %dir %{python3_sitelib}/azure in the %files section of every package that installs something directly into the azure directory. ----- The packaging guidelines have more general information about directory ownership (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/UnownedDirectories/), and there was a discussion specifically about the nuances of Python namespace packages and directory ownership not too long ago (https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]/thread/URH4A6JCZCYOFAFPDGCGOLO5YRGZLQYT/). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
