On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 8:52 AM Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 at 10:19, Tom Hughes via devel <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I don't see how this is FHS compliant, which in turn would make >> it non-compliant with Fedora Packaging Guidelines, namely: >> > > > I am in agreement here and think that this is NOT a change to be made in F36 but needs to be worked through the proper channels of 'upstream'. Get the FHS updated and fixed, work out that the change actually is going to be stuck to in SuSE and not rolled back and then push it to Fedora. It's actually /usr/lib not /usr that applies here. https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04s06.html And it's been worked through proper upstream channels for 4+ years. Location http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/2017-October/006722.html FHS question http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/2017-October/006697.html There's a bunch of back and forth throughout. The rpmdb isn't really variable data. It's static data that describes other static data. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
