On Thu, 20.12.12 18:48, Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > Ahem. Isn't your own first sentence suggesting that *your* way is the
> > one and only right way? I don't see how you can attack Lennart for
> > having a firm belief about what's the 'right way' when you also seem to
> > have a firm belief about what's the 'right way'...
> >
> The FPC Guidelines give package maintainers the option of using
> %{_libexecdir}, %{_libdir}. The recent changes that I worked on allow
> %{_prefix}/lib in certain cases. When FPC at large decided that portions of
> what systemd wanted to do still didn't completely fall under those cases,
> I took the request from FPC that FESCo simply grant a special exception for
> systemd to FESCo.
>
> So if you're arguing that my firm belief is also a right way or the highway,
> belief then you aren't arguing about the use of lib, libexec, and lib64
> anymore. You're opening up a much larger conversation about whether
> top-down or bottom-up decision making is the direction that Fedora should be
> taking in the future; whether Fedora "management" should decide on one and
> only one way to do things and then force every packager to do things that
> way.
>
> But if you want to go that route on this question, then it should be noted
> that FPC ruled that the use that systemd makes of
> %{_prefix}/lib was wrong under the prior guidelines but the systemd
> maintainers refused to make their package conform. So while you might pose
> that question it's not likely to have a more desirable outcome for the
> systemd package maintainers than what they have now.
BTW, I am fine with giving packages a certain amount of freedom how they
want to handle things, but I also believe that guidelines should
*guide*, i.e. suggest a a way to go, and I believe that suggested way to
go is lib/<package> rather than %{_libexecdir}.
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
