No longer on fpc, but to answer your question "what is the point of defining the files and directories in %files when they won't be present due to the use of tmpfs", I'm always been of the firm opinion that in general all files should be "owned", e.g. that rpm -q -f /path/too/foo can tell you the owner. This has some other nice technical benefits, but no need to go more into that here.

What seems to be a primary problem here is the lack of /run/lock in the container image, offhand, I'd consider that a bug worth fixing.

(I'll try to followup onlist saying basically the same thing)

Understood. But for that %ghost is probably the best approach, isn't it?

I was pointed to one use case when having the file (and the directory) in rpm is useful -- when the package is installed and it immediately needs to be used, without tmpfiles being invoked.

I just wanted to point out that the fesco ticket mentioned above is something like six years old. The guideline for tempfiles.d has changed since them. I'm not sure why anyone would think it relevant that what's referenced in the guideline differs from what's in the old fesco ticket.

I don't see a conflict between the FESCO ticket and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tmpfiles.d -- I merely referenced that FESCO ticket to show what the current packaging guideline seems to be based on.

If you have a suggested diff for the tmpfiles.d page, that'd be a helpful starting point.

I don't think I have a diff to propose. At this point I'm looking for consensus rather than actual wording.

We discussed this at this weeks meeting (http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-06-23/fpc.2016-06-23-16.00.txt):

• Ticket #629 Handling dirs. under /var/lock and /var/run in %files and
  images (geppetto, 16:43:00)
• ACTION: Do minor cleanup of /var/run and /var/lock to /run and
  /run/lock (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 17:05:28)
• LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/439 has a comment about
  %ghost being ill-advised (orionp, 17:05:52)
• You can ask systemd package that owns the tmpfiles.d conf. for
  /var/lock to also have it in %files (geppetto, 17:16:22)
• Also ping the upstream container tools about fixing their tools for
  this issue. (geppetto, 17:16:53)

...another workaround I remembered is that if all the packages which own dirs. in /run/lock also own /run/lock that will fix things.

Replying to [comment:10 james]:

Who is the needinfo aimed at?

Replying to [comment:9 james]:

We discussed this at this weeks meeting (http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-06-23/fpc.2016-06-23-16.00.txt):

• 629 Handling dirs. under /var/lock and /var/run in %files and

  
  images (geppetto, 16:43:00)
• ACTION: Do minor cleanup of /var/run and /var/lock to /run and
  /run/lock (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 17:05:28)

Could you elaborate what this means and what it should achieve?

• LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/439 has a comment about
  %ghost being ill-advised (orionp, 17:05:52)
• You can ask systemd package that owns the tmpfiles.d conf. for
  /var/lock to also have it in %files (geppetto, 17:16:22)

The symlink is owned by filesystems (filesystem-3.2-37.fc24.x86_64). How does adding ownership to systemd improve the situation of Docker base image?

• Also ping the upstream container tools about fixing their tools for
  this issue. (geppetto, 17:16:53)

What is the proposed fix?

...another workaround I remembered is that if all the packages which own dirs. in /run/lock also own /run/lock that will fix things.

So after the pagure migration I'm trying to clean up all of the open FPC ticket. And I have very little idea of what to do with this one.

This ticket was put into needinfo state because basically the committee can't really proceed beyond the minor cleanups we agreed to do and so we need either a draft or a concrete proposal or something we can consider. We just don't have the manpower to write all of those things ourselves. And there aren't that many states a ticket could go into; needinfo fit, so that's where it went.

I think the question asked in the previous content were all answered in the meeting logs starting at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-06-23/fpc.2016-06-23-16.00.log.html#l-125

Could you elaborate what this means and what it should achieve?

We noticed the guidelines referenced the old locations for things and so we added an action item to clean them up. It would achieve… more clean-up-edness(?).

The symlink is owned by filesystems (filesystem-3.2-37.fc24.x86_64). How does adding ownership to systemd improve the situation of Docker base image

But there's also something which in some cases creates it dynamically, right? Isn't that part of what this ticket is all about?

The problem here is that someone who knows all about docker and containers and such is coming to a group who, by and large, doesn't have that expertise and then asking us for the solution to problems that are only seen with docker and containers and such, and not presenting a concrete solution. So we've tried to do what we can, but obviously it wasn't sufficient. And, well, someone's going to have to actually make a concrete and actionable proposal.

I also have no memory of whether I actually did clean up all mentions of /var/run and /var/lock, so I'll go search for that now.

There was one remaining reference to each of /var/run and /var/lock, which fixed.

So this been without answer for 2 years... I think we don't need to have this opened anymore.