Hi list,
I've been thinking about packaging 9base [1], a port of Plan 9 userspace tools,
for Fedora. I'm interested in opinions on what style is "better" and why.
The problem is most of 9base binaries (and their manpages) have the same
name as their coreutils (and other) equivalents, therefore we need to install
them to somewhere else. Upstream suggests installing all its directories (bin,
share, lib, ...) into /usr/local. This is not acceptable for obvious reasons.
Options:
#1, aka the Gentoo way
Gentoo installs its 9base package into /usr/plan9, basically not touching
9base files at all. This collides with FHS and therefore would require an
exception in Packaging Guidelines.
#2, aka the Debian way
Debian installs its 9base package into /usr/lib. Well, most of it. They
also prefix all the manpages with 'plan9-', not the binaries, though.
This placement (provided we use %{_libdir}) introduces issues for Plan
9 rc shell scripts and their shebangs.
#3, aka the Fedora way?
Should we do this in some other way?
I personally like the #1 better since it's more clean (except for the required
FHS exception) and more or less aligned with upstream.
[1] http://tools.suckless.org/9base
--
# Petr Sabata
Attachment:
pgpSFSae_cwlT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
