Re: 9base in Fedora?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 09:36:52AM +0200, Petr Sabata wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:08:01AM +0200, Alexander BostrÃm wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Now that's what I said, isn't it?
> We'd need exceptions in our Guidelines (it's not like we don't have any at the
> moment).
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> And /usr/lib/9base/lib...
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> No, that would be awful.
> Not just that it would require our user to rewrite all p9 scripts she hopes to
> use, it would also make her life really uncomfortable if she wanted to use 9base
> instead of coreutils (e.g. by adding <9base-bin> to PATH).

Ok, looks like I can't read.
Never mind this rant. It actually looks good!

> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> In case of #2:
> What about the manpages?
> What about the lib vs lib64 issue?
> 
> > 
> > /abo
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > devel mailing list
> > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> 
> -- 
> # Petr Sabata



> -- 
> devel mailing list
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


-- 
# Petr Sabata

Attachment: pgpGR1Vf0P9rJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux