-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06/04/2012 09:49 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > 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. > Thanks. They do allow akmods though, so I'm not sure exactly where they draw the line. But I think I should take into account the possibility that it won't get in there either, and maintain a separate repo for it (*not* on fedorapeople, of course) >>> 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. > Python's doesn't, I thought? There is some integration but it's the other way around -- that RPM-provided Python modules are "seen" by easy_install and pip. > 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. > I personally think they could have just used /var/run for that ... 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/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPzDuXAAoJEEr1VKujapN6M6IH/1O0riyX4Dhl8Uo4+nPRBz48 52MuTsMkAlG0TuiTod0PhDhShsgIRbDcSBBDErc2mZiV0SKIBAT3OszzG9QfXB6G 7GZ1ktJ86UcRxm+EtdTclp6aVEtpc9VrfcKBy4Ua0OlNPViPzqXi3+IRT75Fz3ZV nwhbkaTBeSwGS6pOQZ3qBqdn/pFZT/GQaZBK7QEGSo4kjVgqrOKVS1almmFJ4Y/B JIg1Kec7HyAXzASbdjU+bBTQqw1giPQD5eICqx+vaO+3Pg3N3aDsE5aRNdyVMj1Y Gecn7WLJ6VXA9Nlld6zoqGYuwX6xgialZfXunVW/+t4wFWR6OuKQ49AhVZzkNBg= =Nu9R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
