Re: Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-12-19)

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

 



On 12/21/2012 06:36 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 06:09:10AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/21/2012 05:54 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:38:17AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

I disagree. systemd simply hasn't taken libexecdir into account in
its design and now is trying to propagate their oversight/mistake as
"standard" instead of making their works compliant with _our_
distro's demands.

libexec doesn't exist in any published version of the FHS,

FHS != GCS

http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Directory-Variables

IIRC, it's around there for at approx 20 years.

So?

Next the FHS, it is one of the fundamental "standards", which define the basis of all packaging works on Linux/GNU and thus also the FPG.

and even the
draft of 3.0 makes it clear that it's optional.
We all know about the strong positions of the FHS. It is the least
common denominator of all distros and deliberately weakly formulated
;)

Our use of libexec is
non-standard,

C.f above. I disagree.

The GCS describe the behaviour of code written to the GCS, nothing
more. The majority of the software we ship doesn't conform to them.

I disagree again. Most packages silently conform its path conventions, only few don't and only few explicitly exploit it.

not systemd's use of lib.

I disagree again. systemd is in its infancy and needs to do its
homework. As I see it, like many other works, they simply did not
take the GCS and the side-effects of multi-arching into account.

They're not a GNU project, and so there's no reason for them to follow
the GCS.
Sure, but there is hardly any reason for a package to not adopt it.

If systemd was an arbitrary package, it hardly wouldn't have an alternative to adapt to it, because it in its current shape violates the FPG.

There's also no reason for it to support multiarch - you're
never going to have two copies of systemd installed simultaneously.

Agreed, it's unlikely to happen you'll run 2 in parallel, but you'll never know. It would not be the first project, who refused to apply libexecdir until they suddenly could not avoid it for technical reasons.

Ralf




--
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