fre 2011-05-20 klockan 14:17 +0200 skrev Petr Sabata:
> #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.
About /usr, FHS has this to say:
Large software packages must not use a direct subdirectory under
the /usr hierarchy.
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEUSRHIERARCHY
> #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.
/usr/lib/9base/bin, specifically.
About /usr/lib in FHS:
Applications may use a single subdirectory under /usr/lib.
Well that sounds just like what we need.
But there's also this bit:
/usr/lib includes object files, libraries, and internal binaries
that are not intended to be executed directly by users or shell
scripts.
Which doesn't work in this case.
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRLIBLIBRARIESFORPROGRAMMINGANDPA
> #3, aka the Fedora way?
> Should we do this in some other way?
Fedora + FHS doesn't seem to allow for any decent way of installing
multiple user-oriented binaries with the same name. I suggest adding a
prefix "9" or "9base-" or similar to all the binaries and man pages. You
may even make "/usr/bin/9base-foo" a symlink into
"/usr/lib/9base/bin/foo" so the user can still add the other directory
to their PATH and have the short names.
If the prefix solution is not acceptable then #2 is the best alternative
because it's a smaller FHS violation and doesn't clutter /usr.
/abo
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
