On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 05:34:19PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 11/05/2013 04:42 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 04:34:47PM +0100, Honza Horak wrote: > >>On 11/01/2013 08:28 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >>>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. > >>I feel the need to add my POV about choosing /usr/scl for SCL prefix. > >>FHS states: "/usr is the second major section of the filesystem. /usr > >>is shareable, read-only data. That means that /usr should be > >>shareable between various FHS-compliant hosts and must not be written > >>to. Any information that is host-specific or varies with time is > >>stored elsewhere." [1] > >> > >>That seems to me like a no-go for having /usr/scl as a prefix for > >>SCLs, because there surely are packages that need to write some > >>files, probably not only databases. So I'd also vote for /opt since > >>there are no such requirements. > >> > >>[1] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEUSRHIERARCHY > >> > >Although I favor /opt, this is not one of the reasons. Our interpretation > >of /opt is that we also cannot depend on it being read-write and > >host-specific. It looks like fhs developed /opt to be a vendor-friendly > >version of /usr. > In my understanding, this is exactly what you want (/opt/fedora or > may-be /opt/scl/<more>) > Yep, that was my argument for why /opt made sense. > > Therefore it is also read-only and shareable. The > >reasoning stems from FHS's decision to separate read-write and host-specific > >information from /opt: > > > >""" > >Package files that are variable (change in normal operation) must be > >installed in /var/opt. See the section on /var/opt for more information. > > > >Host-specific configuration files must be installed in /etc/opt. See the > >section on /etc for more information. > >""" > > > >http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#OPTADDONAPPLICATIONSOFTWAREPACKAGES > > > >As stated in my Filesystem Location Part 2 email: > >https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2013-November/009717.html > > > >"we also noted that no matter whether /usr or /opt was used, config files > >would still need to be placed somewhere under /etc and state files somewhere > >under /var." > Correct - What is you problem with this? > No problem from me -- this is entirely sensible. I was pointing out to Honza Horak that /opt and /usr are similar in this regard and therefore either solution would need supplemental directory trees in /etc and /var to suit our needs. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpE4OmgDeSE4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
