[Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

----- Original Message -----
> On 02/07/2012 08:08 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> On 02/07/2012 07:38 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> >>> Hi Tom,
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>> The section of the Packaging Guidelines covering /srv was
> >>>> amended
> >>>> to
> >>>> include /opt and /usr/local. Specifically, the following
> >>>> sentence
> >>>> was
> >>>> added:
> >>>>
> >>>>     In addition, no Fedora package can have any files or
> >>>>     directories
> >>>>     under /opt or /usr/local, as these directories are not
> >>>>     permitted to
> >>>>     be used by Distributions in the FHS.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_Files_or_Directories_under_.2Fsrv.2C_.2Fopt.2C_or_.2Fusr.2Flocal
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>
> >>> Can I ask you where specifically you found the statement, that
> >>> distributions cannot place their data under /opt?
> >>
> >> "/opt is reserved for the installation of add-on application
> >> software
> >> packages."
> >>
> >> In this context, "add-on application software packages" are meant
> >> to
> >> be
> >> interpreted as "non-OS vendor supplied" packages.
> >>
> >> Ralf
> >
> > Again, citing FHS:
> > "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."
> >
> > How can this be interpreted as "non-OS vendor supplied"?
> 
> Like others said, the FHS often leaves room for interpretation. To
> understand this you need to take the historic context into
> consideration.
> 
> The point in here is the definition of "add-on packages".
> 
> RH/Fedora has always interpreted "add-on packages" as "3rd party"
> packages (== packages not shipped by RH/Fedora), while other distros
> historically interpreted this differently.
>   E.g. there was a time (> 10 years ago) SuSE had considered "gnome"
>   to
> be an (optional) add-on package and had installed it into /opt/gnome.
> 
> Now, re-read the sentence in this context: The "may" is an escape to
> allow both these interpretations, while it also implies "distros may
> disallow". The latter is the option RH/Fedora has chosen long time
> ago.
> 
> Meanwhile probably all distros interpret the FHS in the RH/Fedora
> sense
> and 3rd parties (Most prominent example: Adobe) are shipping their
> packages installed into /opt.
> 
> Ralf

I see your point and I agree that it does make sense from this perspective. Still, I'd like to know what is behind this decision - why do we want to forbid this behaviour? Have any Fedora users run into problems with any software installing under /opt? Please give me some rationale behind this. I still think we may find situations appropriate for using /opt and we shouldn't just say "don't do that", but rather "be careful when doing that".

-- 
Regards,
Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda.