Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#4624 - apr package has non-standard paths

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Thomas Bächler (brain0) - Friday, 12 May 2006, 15:10 GMT
Last edited by arjan timmerman (blaasvis) - Thursday, 25 May 2006, 15:48 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Testing
Status Closed
Assigned To Judd Vinet (judd)
Architecture not specified
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version 0.7.1 Noodle
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

The apr packages has files in the /usr/build-1/ directory, which is not a proper standard-directory:

[thomas@architect ~]$ pacman -Qo /usr/build-1/*
/usr/build-1/apr_rules.mk is owned by apr 1.2.2-2
/usr/build-1/libtool is owned by apr 1.2.2-2
/usr/build-1/make_exports.awk is owned by apr 1.2.2-2
/usr/build-1/make_var_export.awk is owned by apr 1.2.2-2
/usr/build-1/mkdir.sh is owned by apr 1.2.2-2

It doesn't look like those files are even necessary. If they are, maybe move them to /usr/lib/apr/ or something similar.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Jan de Groot (JGC)
Saturday, 20 January 2007, 11:29 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Comment by Jan de Groot (JGC) - Tuesday, 07 November 2006, 23:15 GMT
./configure --with-installbuilddir=/usr/lib/apr-1/build would be suitable, fedora places them over there also. Take a good look at the fedora specfile (http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/apr/apr.spec?rev=1.61&view=auto), there's other useful things in there also.
Comment by Andrea Garbarini (garba) - Wednesday, 27 December 2006, 16:28 GMT
this bug has been reported SIX months ago but the packager hasn't bothered with patching it yet, although the solution is trivial, this gives this distro a terrible impression IMO, and there are tons of packages which store data in non-fhs compliant locations... I think a better packaging policy should be put in place
Comment by Roman Kyrylych (Romashka) - Wednesday, 03 January 2007, 23:14 GMT
> and there are tons of packages which store data in non-fhs compliant locations...
could you please create bug report where list all such packages and changes that should be made for each of them.
Comment by Andrea Garbarini (garba) - Wednesday, 03 January 2007, 23:31 GMT
please refer to this bug report for a partial list

http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6092

i'm planning to review all packages from both the current and extra repos and report any inconsistencies I'll come across

Loading...