On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 20:37 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > On Sat, 2006-03-18 at 22:58 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > > > That corner case operating system is used world wide, and you (I > > assume so by your email address) work for a company that produces a > > variant of the GNU system. So it isn't presumptious at all, on the > > contrary... > > Based on this information, since Linux uses /usr, and it is not > presumptious to assume that we should not be using /usr, all packages > storing files in /usr are hereby in violation of all of the Fedora > Extras Packaging guidelines. > > That's assuming that the Fedora Extras Packaging guidelines stated that > the GNU CS was to be followed. Which it most certainly does not. > > I believe that the FHS trumps the GNU CS. Neither trumps anything. The points you seem to be ignoring: * The GCS is a CODING standard. * The FHS is a FILE HIERARCHY standand. These are completely different tasks. All the GCS does, is to specify that packages (i.e. developers) should consider/honor a "sharedstatedir" for which the GCS authors make certain proposals. The GCS's proposals do not fit well into the FHS, a fact, which I consider to be a gap of the FHS. I presume this gap exists deliberately, because standardizing sharing data between systems is hardly possible in real world. I.e. I don't see any "x trumps y" relation, but consider the whole issue to be a question of implementation. I.e. system integrator's/vendor's task to choose/implement a specific convention that complies to both for a product (such as Fedora). > Thus, thou shalt not store > stateful data in /usr/con. Feel free to put it in /con, or /var, or > anywhere else that doesn't violate the FHS. Technically /com would be nice solution (and I've seen this being used in real world), but as others already pointed out, this violates the current FHS. > Is that good enough? I'm willing to hear reasonable arguments that don't > involve tunnel vision, otherwise, this is the policy I'm taking to > FESCO. IMO, from FE's POV, this whole issue boils down to a bug in RPM. /usr/com is definitely wrong. Now, it's up to the RH and FESCO to find an reasonable, FHS compliant convention of how to implement a "sharedstatedir" in Fedora and up to RH's rpm integrators to decide on how to implement it in rpm. IMO, using /var as "sharedstatedir" would probably work in 99% of all cases, but I thinks will only a matter of time until you'd find a clash between "localstatedir" and "sharedstatedir", so I'd be leaning for /var/com or similar. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
