Hi, On Qui, 2013-07-11 at 15:30 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:48:56PM +0000, Petr Pisar wrote: > >> I've just spotted usr-move has been completed. > >> <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Filesystem_Layout> > >> states: > >> > >> In addition, Fedora packages MUST NOT place files or directories in the > >> /bin, /sbin, /lib or /lib64 directories. Instead, the /usr/bin, > >> /usr/sbin, /usr/lib, and /usr/lib64 directories must be used. > >> Should I file bug against bash, glibc, and other packages? Or should > >> there be a list of exceptions? > > > > .. and no, we don't need a list of exceptions. > > > > Keep it consistent with upstream / common sense / distros that > > didn't make the usrmove mistake. I don't think was a mistake , IMO to be a mistake, I need a prove that we need /bin and /usr/bin directories as independent directories and have some binaries in one and others in other . > While I agree with calling this a mistake, just ignoring rules that > one doesn't like will not allow us to build even a barely consistent > distribution. Filing bugs would be quite appropriate. > That said, I'd love Fedora to be significantly consistent in more > important matters than paths in a spec file that have exactly zero > effect on users in the best case[1]. > Mirek > > [1] Note that just moving the files may not be good enough - the > package may need to add an explicit Provides:/non-usr-path and keep it > for an indefinite time. IHMO , I think guideline overstate MUST NOT place files in /bin etc , this is applicable on scriptlets of the spec , but not in upstream code, if upstream code use /bin, don't worry about that, because with /bin symbol link to /usr/bin, all will be saved in /usr/bin . My opinion . -- Sérgio M. B. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
