For two reviews I did recently, I noticed fedora-review complaining about directories not being owned:
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr, /usr/share/doc, /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.12, /usr, /usr/share/doc, /usr/share, /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/lib
That's a pretty misleading and worrying message, since those directories shouldn't be owned by individual packages.
The reviews were created by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) and can be found on copr:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07165139-python-snakemake-storage-plugin-ftp/fedora-review/review.txt https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gui1ty/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07165135-python-snakemake-executor-plugin-slurm/fedora-review/review.txt
More precisely, these directories are owned either by filesystem or by the system Python packages, upon which the package under review correctly depends (it’s a very normal and boring modern Python library package).
filesystem
I’ve seen the bogus complaints about Python-owned directories in several recent reviews, but the complaints about filesystem-owned ones are new to me too.
Spurious complaints appear in Rust package reviews, too, e.g. in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274366:
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/cargo/registry, /usr, /usr/share, /usr/share/cargo
Login to comment on this ticket.