On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Joe Julian wrote: > Which implies the only requirement is that the SCL installer would have to ask > before replacing a package (assuming /opt/<package>). The LANANA registration > and subsequent package hierarchy would be simplest, safest, and most logical, > imho. The LSB folks at our weekly bug triage considered the bug filed by Matt Miller on the topic [1]. The FHS and LANANA space is mature without much activity, and so my comment 2 in that bug was designed to permit a 'fast-track' assignment of a /opt/fedora/ namespace, for use as the project sees fit We need to do some infrastructure work with LANANA to communicate this well within the FHS documentation, but as Jeff's summary indicates, absent some major objection being surfaced, will, I think, be the way the LSB proceeds in its next update (usually done at six month intervals) -- Russ herrold [1] https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1164 -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
