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
