Re: [PATCH RFC v2] dhcp: package /var/lib/dhcp with dhcp-client rather than dhcp-server

[Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>]

On 01/12/2012 01:56 PM, Steve Sakoman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Saul Wold<sgw@linux.intel.com>  wrote:
>> On 01/11/2012 11:00 AM, Steve Sakoman wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Eric Bénard<eric@eukrea.com>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Le Fri,  6 Jan 2012 20:51:54 -0800,
>>>> Steve Sakoman<steve@sakoman.com>    a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> -FILES_dhcp-server = "${sbindir}/dhcpd ${sysconfdir}/init.d/dhcp-server
>>>>> ${localstatedir}/lib/dhcp/"
>>>>> +FILES_dhcp-server = "${sbindir}/dhcpd ${sysconfdir}/init.d/dhcp-server"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> isn't this directory necessary for dhcp-server ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry for the delay in responding!  I missed seeing your comment.
>>>
>>> Yes, both packages need this directory.  But the dhcp-server package
>>> init already creates it if it doesn't exist:
>>>
>> You can still have it in the dhcp-server Package as long as the attributes
>> (ownership, perm, ...) are the same and it's not a symlink, so please
>> include it with the FILES-dhcp-server.
>
> In my experience you can't add an item to more than one FILES spec.
>
> I just did the experiment of including it in both client and server
> FILES, and the directory only shows up it the one that occurs first,
> server in this case.
>
> I added the directory to the client FILES in my patch because I saw
> that the server init creates the directory if it doesn't exist.
>
> I still believe that the original patch is the best way to handle this.
>
Fair enough, should I consider this RFC patch now the real patch or will 
you resend?

Sau!

> Steve
>