Did you try to raise this issue upstream? Many times, upstreams are just unaware of downstream packaging practices, but they are willing to work together and accept patches to improve the situation. Iñaki On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 at 15:39, Nicholas Frizzell <nfrizzel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm working on packaging a large piece of software which doesn't lend itself naturally to the FHS layout for the installation stage (https://github.com/o3de/o3de), since there are a lot of assumptions baked in about relative paths which would be very difficult to manually patch and maintain. When packaging software like this, what are the best practices to consider? The best compromise I've found is to do something similar to what the Firefox and Libreoffice packages do, which is to install the root project contents into their own directory under /usr/lib/proj, is this something that would be acceptable by Fedora standards when submitting for review? > _______________________________________________ > packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue -- Iñaki Úcar _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
