On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 6:31 AM, John Florian <john.florian@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 2015-06-05 at 01:12 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:21 PM, John Florian <john.florian@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I’ve been curious how Fedora plans to tackle inclusion of Puppet 4, but
> > haven’t heard even a peep on the subject. As described[1], they’ve moved to
> > an all-in-one packaging process that “includes Puppet 4, both Facter 2.4 and
> > CFacter 0.4, the latest Hiera and Mcollective, as well Ruby 2.1.5, OpenSSL
> > 1.0.0r, and our gem dependencies.” Furthermore, “the package installs into
> > its own area in /opt/puppetlabs”. Thus upstream is both bundling and using
> > very Fedora-unfriendly file locations. L
>
> As long as it's in "/opt", what's the problem? That's what /opt is
> for! Unwielding and resolving individual components of an integrated
> tool suite is often a nightmare, which is why puppet, chef, and
> numerous commercial packages do the same thing.
Packaging Guidelines for one. My personal belief is that /opt should
only be populated by the local admin, never the distro nor a vendor.
Personally I do so using a scheme like /opt/$VENDOR/$PRODUCT/$RELEASE,
but to my knowledge the FHS has never ratified anything like that. The
FHS seems to take a rather vague stance on /opt overall IMHO.
Just as a point of record, we do /opt/$VENDOR/$PRODUCT
not so much with the release, but we're close to what you wanted.
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
