Nice work. I could probably pick the US anthem and add as much of my own wording/interpretation in it to make it sound like a Taliban mainfest or vice versa. I really like the part where you suggest that the FHS "doesn't mean what they write". And just what on earth does the "omitted next sentence" about "Large software packages" not being allowed to deviate from the FHS layout like X11 once did have to do with anything in this thread at all? :) The FHS' wording and intentions are clear. Whether you agree with them or not is something else, but we're rather committed to following the FHS (with the libexec exception which I submitted to the FHS for review). On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 04:32:13AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 23:05 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 08:36:06PM +0100, Laurent Rineau wrote: > > > On Thursday 01 March 2007 14:30:57 Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > Anyway personally I only care about removing %config from /usr, any > > > > solution will do. > > > > > > Can you explain your rational against %config files in /usr? > > > > "/usr is the second major section of the filesystem. /usr is > > shareable, read-only data. > At one point in time, at "use-time". > > This doesn't mean the data on /usr is inaccessible to a maintainer, nor > does this mean /usr to be "vendor-exclusive", nor does this mean /usr > not to be customizable. > > > That means that /usr should be shareable > ... between machines using an identical OSes, identical architectures > and "compatible" setups ... > > > between various FHS-compliant hosts and must not be written to. > It doesn't mean this. > > It means /usr must not be written to at run-time, i.e. dynamically > created files. These are the files which nowadays go to /var, not % > config files (Note: %config == Not 100% under rpm-control != > (configuration|customizable files). > > > Any information that is host-specific or varies with time is > > stored elsewhere." > > Furthermore: You omitted the next sentence: > "Large software packages must not use a direct subdirectory under > the /usr hierarchy." > > X11 traditionally had been installed under /usr/X11*. The sentence above > is a reflection of this fact. > > Ralf > > > -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpNO9ZBFEOJa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
