This is mostly just me reporting things were decided and things that the FPC seems to have decided on so I'm going to go forward with the draft assuming that this is how things are going to be. I'll send out separate emails for the other things discussed so we can discuss them in isolation. == Partial approval == FPC approved this portion of the draft: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/SCL_Guidelines_(draft)#SCL_Approval minus the SCL Retirement section. The reason for not approving that section is that it's not finalized yet. That section will likely be voted on at next week's meeting so if you have comments on improving it, please let me know (IRC or an {{admon/question|| Comment}} in the draft will assure that I see your comment. This mailing list will let others participate in a discussion. I recommend doing both :-) == Filesystem Location == A straw poll was taken about the filesystem location of SCLs. A few FPC members were willing to use /opt but others were heavily opposed to it. Everyone was okay with using /usr/scl (or the plural form /usr/scls). So I think that needs to become the scl root dir (is that the right term?) for Fedora. FPC was okay with the idea that third parties might use /usr/scl as well. I didn't bring this up at the meeting but one thing that influences me on this is that scls are inherently rpm managed and therefore mixing both our scls with third party scls does not seem like the same vendor-OS problem that /opt was designed to fix. The location does need to include a vendor identifier. at the meeting we discussed /usr/scl/$vendor/$scl_name/ but if the vendor string made its way into the $scl_name I don't think people would object to /usr/scl/$scl_name (scl_name is like fdr-ruby1.9.3). -Toshio
Attachment:
pgp24L9ZfPFxX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
