(Attribution for last edit) |
(Answer to last question found.) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
--[[User:Vonbrand|Vonbrand]] 16:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | --[[User:Vonbrand|Vonbrand]] 16:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
I wasn't clear whether directories specified in tmpfiles.d conf files ought to be packaged in the manifest as normal, with %ghost, or not at all. | I wasn't clear whether directories specified in tmpfiles.d conf files ought to be packaged in the manifest as normal, with %ghost, or not at all. This statement clears it up: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/525 | ||
The directories ought to be packaged as normal. | |||
--[[User:Twaugh|Tim Waugh]] 09: | --[[User:Twaugh|Tim Waugh]] 09:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 09:38, 27 November 2013
It should be noted that the manpage should be read carefully if what is intended to do is anything more than just creating top-level directories in /var/run or /var/lock. For instance, pki-ca-9.0.5-1.fc15.noarch, pki-kra-9.0.2-1.fc15.noarch, and pki-ocsp-9.0.1-1.fc15.noarch (at least) do something in the line (example from pki-ca):
D /var/lock/pki 0755 root root - D /var/lock/pki/ca 0755 root root - D /var/run/pki 0755 root root - D /var/run/pki/ca 0755 root root -
As each of the three specify cleaning out the /var/run/pki directory, the result probably won't be what is expected...
--Vonbrand 16:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't clear whether directories specified in tmpfiles.d conf files ought to be packaged in the manifest as normal, with %ghost, or not at all. This statement clears it up: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/525 The directories ought to be packaged as normal.
--Tim Waugh 09:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)