Re: Need advice on using a new directory in the root hierarchy
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
On 06/02/2012 07:40 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06/02/2012 11:45 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:09:46AM +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:As such, it seems that this is a justifiable case for creating a new directory under root -- cf. the introduction of /run, as documented in Fedora 15's release notes: This change is compliant with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, which allows distributions to create new directories in the root hierarchy as long as there is careful consideration of the consequences. I posit that compatibility with a vast amount of pre-built binaries, and the reduced usefulness of the tool without this compatibility (anyone who has used MacPorts, with its lack of pre-built binaries, would sympathize). Should I create an FPC ticket for this?Yes, but unless the FPC is willing to abandon the FHS I think it will be a close or negative vote.OK, I probably shouldn't try then if there's almost no chance of it going through. So this should be something for RPM Fusion, I suppose?
RPM Fusion is supposed to follow the Fedora packing rules. => This would not be an option for you.
I don't recall such discussion. I recall a general discussion interaction with some language's "installers" (Python, ruby (gems), etc).Also, there was talk about whether Fedora should allow alternate package managers (meaning system-wide package managers that work with formats that are not rpm ie: dpkg or apt-get that works with .debs [not the apt-get rpm port].) I do not remember what the decision was there.
With regard to them, there had been consensus of "all installers" must properly interact with rpm", esp. must all installations they excercise be reflected into rpm's db.
IMO, the same consideration applies to "alternative package installers".In particular, do several, separate, independent installation db's not make any sense.
Lastly, the release notes do not accurately reflect the reason that the FPC chose to allow /run.
Well, ... unfortunately, yes.I can live with this decision (It's not worth to make a fuzz about it), nevertheless, I consider this decision to be a serious mistake and would be highly in favor of it being revisited and be reverted.
Ralf -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
[Home] [Fedora Legacy] [Fedora Desktop] [Red Hat 9 Bible] [Fedora Bible] [Fedora SELinux] [Big List of Linux Books] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [KDE Users] [Fedora Tools]