On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am 17.02.2012 18:00, schrieb Nathaniel McCallum:
> Move systemd unit files to /usr/share and provide simple logic to fall back /lib, so as not to break upgrades withyou are missing the point that /lib/ to /usr/lib is a theoretical
> custom unit files. I am certainly not advocating a bad user experience. If the schedule doesn't permit it, I'm ok
> with delaying the move to /usr/share until f18. However, I would want to avoid two moves at all costs. I can't
> imagine moving them to /usr/shared is a huge task (considering any bugs you would hit would likely already be hit
> by UsrMove anyway) or that moving the unit files from /lib to /usr/share is any different than moving them from
> /lib to /usr/lib. So the upgrade experience can't be really harmed by such a move.
not invasive change by replacing /lib with a symlink!
I'm fine if you want to symlink /usr/lib/systemd/system to /usr/share/systemd/system or something else comparable. That should be just as noninvasive. My point is that custom files installed in /lib already have to be moved to /usr/lib. Why not also cleanly move systemd unit files to a more standard location?
moving things around the filesystem means you are breaking
each sort of scripts and whatever customized software is
runnign at the users machines - can we please stop to
enforce permanently chaning paths all over the world for
some beautniess reason without any technical point for it
Well, we've already decided to do these kinds of changes (aka UsrMove). If we are going to do so, why not do it right? Besides, we already have nice mechanisms like pkg-config variables to find the right paths for things, your scripts should use those. And what script is going to break by the move to /usr/share that won't be broken by the move to /usr/lib when the proper symlinks are in place?
Nathaniel
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
