Le Lun 5 mars 2007 12:39, Ralf Corsepius a écrit : > On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 12:11 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 10:47:18PM -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: >> > How exactly do you propose packages should install anything under /usr >> > if its readonlyness is so sacrosanct ? Does it at least occur to you >> > that it cannot be readonly at install time ? >> >> Please don't be so literate, we already looped twice around the world >> explaining this. If you read it letter by letter and ignore FHS' >> intentions you may indeed logically conclude that /usr would be an >> empty filesystem, but try reading the full context. >> >> The bottom line is: Don't %config/%config(noreplace) files under /usr. > > 1. When will you finally understand that rpm's %config has nothing to do > with configurating a system. %config only specifies rpm's behavior upon > handling of backups upon install. %config marks files that rpm needs to "preserve" because they can be modified legitimately outside of its control. One of the main FHS arguments for making /usr ro is it doesn't need to be backup-ed. When you use %config on a /usr file you're explicitely asking rpm to do something the FHS told you should not be necessary on a well-designed system. Not having to hunt modified files everywhere on the filesystem and knowing /usr can be recreated from the install media is a major sysadmin boon. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- 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
