On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:43:48PM -0500, R P Herrold wrote: > 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 > Thank Russ! Reading the replies to the Linux Foundation bug report there's a few concerns that I think would help FPC members who are concerned by /opt: * Preallocation of LANANA names sounds great! Thanks. * FPC members might still be concerned about clashes between software and registered LANANA names that weren't registered until recently such as Fedora when it gets pre-allocated. Thinking about it this weekend, I don't see much way around this except to actually update the FHS around /opt. Maybe something like the following changes: A package to be installed in /opt must locate its static files in[...]the provider's LANANA registered name. +Distributions may utilize this structure to install software but must obey +the same rules as any other vendor. [...] The directories /opt/bin, /opt/doc, /opt/include, /opt/info, /opt/lib, and /opt/man are reserved for local system administrator use. [...] these reserved directories. + +The directories /opt/<provider> are reserved for vendors to install their +packages' files within. System administrators are cautioned that because +the list of LANANA provider names grows over time they should not make +arbitrary files and directories inside of /opt. Instead make local changes +in one of the /opt subdirectories listed above or in /srv. [...] -Distributions may install software in /opt, but must not modify or delete -software installed by the local system administrator without the assent of -the local system administrator. +Vendors who install software in /opt must not modify or delete software +installed by the local system administrator without the assent of the local +system administrator. Since the /opt/<provider> hierarchies are reserved +for vendors, vendors are encouraged to limit their software installation to +the /opt/<provider> hierarchy belonging to them to avoid conflicts. http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#OPTADDONAPPLICATIONSOFTWAREPACKAGES * In the rationale section, I'm not sure I understand the purpose of: "Generally, all data required to support a package on a system must be present within /opt/<package>, including files intended to be copied into /etc/opt/<package> and /var/opt/<package> as well as reserved directories in /opt." My gut feeling is that the dual requirement is so that the sys admin can have a baseline to revert to or if they are using a network mount of the /opt hierarchy and want to bring up a new machine. With Fedora-provided rpms, the rpm should serve that same purpose so I think we can waive the requirement to have the files in /opt/<provider>... they can be present in only /etc/opt/<provider> and /var/opt/<provider>. * In the FPC meeting we talked about whether /var/scls/<provider>/<scl>/log/<logfiles> or /var/log/scls/<provider>/<scl>/<logfiles> would be preferable and settled on the latter so that sysadmins could continue to find their logfiles under /var/log. Do you/the lsb have a feeling about that? My reading of usage of /opt is that the FHS would currently mandate /var/opt/<provider>/<scl>/log/<logfiles> -- not sure if this is something that could/should be changed. A rationale of why not to change it would be nice though. limburgher, I know that you were at the last meeting and were championing the non-opt because of FHS/sysadmin overwriting concerns. Do you have anything to add to the above? Thanks everyone, Toshio
Attachment:
pgph0_hPvbiZV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
