-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06/02/2012 11:45 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:09:46AM +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim > wrote: >> As such, it seems that this is a justifiable case for creating a >> new directory under root -- cf. the introduction of /run, as >> documented in Fedora 15's release notes[4]: >> >> This change is compliant with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, >> which allows distributions to create new directories in the root >> hierarchy as long as there is careful consideration of the >> consequences. >> >> I posit that compatibility with a vast amount of pre-built >> binaries, and the reduced usefulness of the tool without this >> compatibility (anyone who has used MacPorts, with its lack of >> pre-built binaries, would sympathize). >> >> Should I create an FPC ticket for this? > Yes, but unless the FPC is willing to abandon the FHS I think it > will be a close or negative vote. > OK, I probably shouldn't try then if there's almost no chance of it going through. So this should be something for RPM Fusion, I suppose? (under the "packages that are FLOSS and has no legal issue but are not allowed by packaging standards, e.g. kmod kernel modules) > Also, there was talk about whether Fedora should allow alternate > package managers (meaning system-wide package managers that work > with formats that are not rpm ie: dpkg or apt-get that works with > .debs [not the apt-get rpm port].) I do not remember what the > decision was there. > Hmm. While alternate package managers that install to locations that would conflict with the default package manager (which would be the case with dpkg), nix just creates symlinks in the user directory -- people have been running it on Debian/Ubuntu with no problem. It's less intrusive than even MacPorts, and is about the same as, say, python-pip and zeroinstall-injector. I'd argue it in an FPC meeting if it's just the concern about alternate package managers, but the /nix layout is probably a deal-breaker. > Lastly, the release notes do not accurately reflect the reason that > the FPC chose to allow /run. Ah. I *was* a bit surprised to find that rationale there, ISTR the debate was a bit more heated there. Thanks, - -- Michel Alexandre Salim Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/ Email: salimma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | GPG key ID: A36A937A Jabber: hircus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | IRC: hircus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPyadAAAoJEEr1VKujapN6IqcH/35QT1yeOe+uK/aXm7rP3FTQ yYbxsVKQDrv3YFvePed2HyjJFWPVhb6XonbXk/fauPE7j2DMwQGEVNlnOsawsZZF OsOt8RDcXsVldz9vFsjNOtE/SabY9bWYky9k2plG03xTOkJLa92qGZiK5vv/+SF+ nJI+UyFFtmtZ2IXzRy7loIW19jW9eC8k5l6Gn+AvoNca++IjHZfn6WVBEAz0DF/x aQ1GJDNa9qTp/h4lKeG8fzWK94IMGHsjLiR7Le75Dygd9saCxSk00h9Ieh48++p5 escjFMsPhxPnPfJR9K9OEaJkNxj+F5zQCyWl+V9HWxD5l6uZYh7okANG7vUBU/A= =J+eA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
