----- Original Message ----- > On 02/07/2012 08:08 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> On 02/07/2012 07:38 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: > >>> Hi Tom, > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> --- > >>>> > >>>> The section of the Packaging Guidelines covering /srv was > >>>> amended > >>>> to > >>>> include /opt and /usr/local. Specifically, the following > >>>> sentence > >>>> was > >>>> added: > >>>> > >>>> In addition, no Fedora package can have any files or > >>>> directories > >>>> under /opt or /usr/local, as these directories are not > >>>> permitted to > >>>> be used by Distributions in the FHS. > >>>> > >>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_Files_or_Directories_under_.2Fsrv.2C_.2Fopt.2C_or_.2Fusr.2Flocal > >>>> > >>>> --- > >>> > >>> Can I ask you where specifically you found the statement, that > >>> distributions cannot place their data under /opt? > >> > >> "/opt is reserved for the installation of add-on application > >> software > >> packages." > >> > >> In this context, "add-on application software packages" are meant > >> to > >> be > >> interpreted as "non-OS vendor supplied" packages. > >> > >> Ralf > > > > Again, citing FHS: > > "Distributions may install software in /opt, but must not modify or > > delete software installed by the local system administrator > > without the assent of the local system administrator." > > > > How can this be interpreted as "non-OS vendor supplied"? > > Like others said, the FHS often leaves room for interpretation. To > understand this you need to take the historic context into > consideration. > > The point in here is the definition of "add-on packages". > > RH/Fedora has always interpreted "add-on packages" as "3rd party" > packages (== packages not shipped by RH/Fedora), while other distros > historically interpreted this differently. > E.g. there was a time (> 10 years ago) SuSE had considered "gnome" > to > be an (optional) add-on package and had installed it into /opt/gnome. > > Now, re-read the sentence in this context: The "may" is an escape to > allow both these interpretations, while it also implies "distros may > disallow". The latter is the option RH/Fedora has chosen long time > ago. > > Meanwhile probably all distros interpret the FHS in the RH/Fedora > sense > and 3rd parties (Most prominent example: Adobe) are shipping their > packages installed into /opt. > > Ralf I see your point and I agree that it does make sense from this perspective. Still, I'd like to know what is behind this decision - why do we want to forbid this behaviour? Have any Fedora users run into problems with any software installing under /opt? Please give me some rationale behind this. I still think we may find situations appropriate for using /opt and we shouldn't just say "don't do that", but rather "be careful when doing that". -- Regards, Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
