On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 02:17:17PM +0200, Petr Sabata wrote:
> 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
I'd like to thank all for their input.
As I understand it, the best way to do this in Fedora, with respect to
same ideas in this thread, would be having %{_libexecdir}/plan9 or similar,
with bin, lib and share (or whatever upstream supplies) subdirectories.
I think creating prefixed symlinks for binaries and manpages would just make it
more ugly. Users should adjust their PATH/MANPATH if they wish to use those.
--
# Petr Sabata
Attachment:
pgpiJmOynAMfM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
