I made this minor change:
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging%3ATmpfiles.d&diff=486249&oldid=458504
and just wanted to make sure folks thought is was okay. Also looks like there may be some other outstanding tmpfiles.d stuff to look at - #670 and #629
No objection from me, though install from /dev/null is perhaps a bit abstruse for the entirety of the audience. Why isn't touch sufficient? If it's about the permissions, touch and then chmod would probably be less confusing to someone who isn't trying to avoid using two commands for some reason.
(This makes me think once again that it would be nice if we were guaranteed a specific default umask in rpm scriptlets.)
Metadata Update from @tibbs: - Issue assigned to orion
Metadata Update from @tibbs: - Issue close_status updated to: None
Metadata Update from @tibbs: - Issue tagged with: meeting
We discussed this at this weeks meeting (http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2017-02-23/fpc.2017-02-23-17.00.txt):
Metadata Update from @james: - Issue untagged with: meeting - Issue tagged with: writeup
Metadata Update from @tibbs: - Issue assigned to tibbs (was: orion)
There's actually nothing to write up here; we did it all during the meeting.
Announcement text:
The example spec in the tmpfiles.d guidelines has been cleaned up. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tmpfiles.d https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/680 * https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/670
Metadata Update from @tibbs: - Issue untagged with: writeup - Issue tagged with: announce
Metadata Update from @tibbs: - Issue untagged with: announce - Issue close_status updated to: accepted - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Login to comment on this ticket.