On 06/02/2012 07:40 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
-----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?
RPM Fusion is supposed to follow the Fedora packing rules.
=> This would not be an option for you.
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.
I don't recall such discussion. I recall a general discussion
interaction with some language's "installers" (Python, ruby (gems), etc).
With regard to them, there had been consensus of "all installers" must
properly interact with rpm", esp. must all installations they excercise
be reflected into rpm's db.
IMO, the same consideration applies to "alternative package installers".
In particular, do several, separate, independent installation db's not
make any sense.
Lastly, the release notes do not accurately reflect the reason that
the FPC chose to allow /run.
Well, ... unfortunately, yes.
I can live with this decision (It's not worth to make a fuzz about it),
nevertheless, I consider this decision to be a serious mistake and would
be highly in favor of it being revisited and be reverted.
Ralf
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
