Re: New top-level dir: /state [WAS: Re: F36 Change: Relocate RPM database to /usr (System-Wide Change] proposal)

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

 




> Am 10.01.2022 um 17:19 schrieb David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> 
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 10:01:57AM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RelocateRPMToUsr
>> 
>> == Summary ==
>> Currently, the RPM databases is located in `/var`. Let's move it to
>> `/usr`. The move is already under way in rpm-ostree-based
>> installations, and in (open)SUSE.
>> [snip]
> 
> Moving the RPM database to /usr feels incorrect to me, but we should move it
> to gain the improvements as noted in the feature proposal.
> 
> ...
> "But what about the FHS?"
> 
> Ah, yes, the FHS.  So, I am a fan of the FHS.  I actually don't care that it
> doesn't change every week and is relatively stable.  Nothing in the FHS
> prevents the addition of new top level directories.
> 
> I would prefer we steer this conversation in the direction of determining a
> new top level location to store data that fits this category of "stateful but
> variable".
> 
> /srv was introduced to provide a consistent location for data in this category
> for server daemons (except mail).
> 
> /media was introduced to provide a consistent location for removable media
> mount points since distributions all did things slightly differently.
> 
> /run was introduced for what was traditionally in /var/run.
> 
> "So what are you suggesting?"
> 
> I would like to see Fedora introduce a new top-level directory called:
> 
>    /state
> 
> That holds the RPM database and other variable and stateful data.  This keeps
> it out of the /usr tree and can serve as a location for future data in this
> category.


I would like to second David Cantrell's suggestion.

For Fedora Server it seems to me essential to strictly follow FHS. And from an "enterprise" perspective, it is essential that FHS indeed does not change every week.

A /state directory is not included in FHS, sure. But at least it does not blatantly violate existing and accepted regulations. 

And the fact that rpm-ostree based installations have already made this change is not a relevant argument for FHS based installations. 


Best
Peter



_______________________________________________
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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [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