[Fedora-directory-users] New filesystem layout for directory server and admin server files

[Rich Megginson]

In order to be more linux friendly, we are currently considering 
changing the layout from having everything under /opt/fedora-ds to 
putting files in their FHS specific paths.  The details are here - 
http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/FHS_Packaging

I've heard some pretty strong opinions for both moving to this and 
sticking to the current packaging model.  I'd like to open this debate 
up to the wider audience.

[John Dennis]

On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 13:59 -0600, Richard Megginson wrote:
>  In order to be more linux friendly, we are currently considering 
>  changing the layout from having everything under /opt/fedora-ds to 
>  putting files in their FHS specific paths.  The details are here - 
>  http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/FHS_Packaging
>  
>  I've heard some pretty strong opinions for both moving to this and 
>  sticking to the current packaging model.  I'd like to open this debate 
>  up to the wider audience. 
I think it's a good idea to move to an FHS layout, not only will this
make directory server fit in with the rest of our packages but it will
also aid in SELinux policy which makes strong assumptions about location
in FHS directories.

I did a very cursory review of the layout and right off the top of my
head it looks pretty good. I'm not entirely certain the slapd instance
should be located under /var/lib but that might be nit.

A good way to get lots of eyeballs to review the layout is to submit the
RPM for review.
-- 
John Dennis <jdennis(a)redhat.com&gt;

[Rich Megginson]

John Dennis wrote:
>  On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 13:59 -0600, Richard Megginson wrote:
>    
> > In order to be more linux friendly, we are currently considering 
> > changing the layout from having everything under /opt/fedora-ds to 
> > putting files in their FHS specific paths.  The details are here - 
> > http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/FHS_Packaging
> >
> > I've heard some pretty strong opinions for both moving to this and 
> > sticking to the current packaging model.  I'd like to open this debate 
> > up to the wider audience.
> >     
>
>  I think it's a good idea to move to an FHS layout, not only will this
>  make directory server fit in with the rest of our packages but it will
>  also aid in SELinux policy which makes strong assumptions about location
>  in FHS directories.
>     
What if we ship our own SELinux policy with Fedora DS?
>  I did a very cursory review of the layout and right off the top of
> my
>  head it looks pretty good. I'm not entirely certain the slapd instance
>  should be located under /var/lib but that might be nit.
>     
I couldn't figure out what other place would be appropriate for dynamic 
files like databases, backups, and dynamic config.  Note that openldap 
uses /var/lib/ldap.
>  A good way to get lots of eyeballs to review the layout is to submit
> the
>  RPM for review.
>     
Once we have an RPM . . . we're not there yet . . . step by step, inch 
by inch . . .

[Kimmo Koivisto]

Richard Megginson wrote:
>  In order to be more linux friendly, we are currently considering
>  changing the layout from having everything under /opt/fedora-ds to
>  putting files in their FHS specific paths.  The details are here -
>  http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/FHS_Packaging
>  
How about default schema files under /etc/schema, are these files common to 
all instaces or just skeleton files that are used when new instance is 
created?

Having fixed directory for common schema files would be nice, easier to add 
and remove custom schema files. 

>  I've heard some pretty strong opinions for both moving to this
> and
>  sticking to the current packaging model.  I'd like to open this debate
>  up to the wider audience. 
My opinion, let's move to the new layout.

BR
Kimmo

[Michael Chang]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, John Dennis wrote:

| On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 13:59 -0600, Richard Megginson wrote:
| > In order to be more linux friendly, we are currently considering 
| > changing the layout from having everything under /opt/fedora-ds to 
| > putting files in their FHS specific paths.  The details are here - 
| > http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/FHS_Packaging
| > 
| > I've heard some pretty strong opinions for both moving to this and 
| > sticking to the current packaging model.  I'd like to open this debate 
| > up to the wider audience.
| 
| I think it's a good idea to move to an FHS layout, not only will this
| make directory server fit in with the rest of our packages but it will
| also aid in SELinux policy which makes strong assumptions about location
| in FHS directories.

I'm on the fence about this.  I think you have good points.  I also see
where mj(a)sci.fi is coming from, too.  Fedora DS isn't the only piece of
software that is a bundle unto itself.  Apache Tomcat comes to mind.
As for an SELinux policy, one can be created that fits the current directory
and file layout.  If a policy is going to be created, I would think that
it would be just as easy (or difficult) to create one for an FHS layout
as it would be for the current layout.
You could always make a separate, FHS-specific package available and see
what people think.  If the votes are high enough in support of the new
layout then you could make a permanent switch.  The only thing I would
suggest, assuming you decide to roll out a package for this layout, is
to ensure directory naming consistency.  I see that you've proposed to have
an /etc/fedora-ds directory.  However, for the 'fds-admin' package you
also have an /etc/fds directory.  You should pick either '/etc/fedora-ds'
or '/etc/fds' and stick with it.  Having a fragmented naming scheme would
defeat part of the purpose of adopting a new layout.


Michael


-- 
/* BEGIN SIG
 *
 * "Most of us, when all is said and done, like what
 *  we like and make up reasons for it afterwards."
 *  -- Soren F. Petersen
 *
 *-----------------------------
 * Michael Chang
 * miranda [at] syndetic [dot] org
 * AIM: Solempathe
 * http://www.syndetic.org/
 */

[Michael Chang]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Kimmo Koivisto wrote:

| Richard Megginson wrote:
| > In order to be more linux friendly, we are currently considering
| > changing the layout from having everything under /opt/fedora-ds to
| > putting files in their FHS specific paths.  The details are here -
| > http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/FHS_Packaging
| >
| How about default schema files under /etc/schema, are these files common to 
| all instaces or just skeleton files that are used when new instance is 
| created?

I don't agree with this.  '/etc/schema' is an arbitrary location whose name
does not belie its purpose.  In other words, a 'schema' directory that resides
directly beneath '/etc' is an unqualified name.

| Having fixed directory for common schema files would be nice, easier to add 
| and remove custom schema files. 

Agreed.  How about this:
  /etc/[fedora-ds|fds]/schema/{default,custom}

That way, there would be no question about where to place custom schema files.

Michael


| --
| Fedora-directory-users mailing list
| Fedora-directory-users(a)redhat.com
| https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users

-- 
/* BEGIN SIG
 *
 * "Most of us, when all is said and done, like what
 *  we like and make up reasons for it afterwards."
 *  -- Soren F. Petersen
 *
 *-----------------------------
 * Michael Chang
 * miranda [at] syndetic [dot] org
 * AIM: Solempathe
 * http://www.syndetic.org/
 */

[Kimmo Koivisto]

Michael Chang wrote:
>  On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Kimmo Koivisto wrote:
>  | How about default schema files under /etc/schema, are these files common
>  | to all instaces or just skeleton files that are used when new instance is
>  | created?
>
>  I don't agree with this.  '/etc/schema' is an arbitrary location whose name
>  does not belie its purpose.  In other words, a 'schema' directory that
>  resides directly beneath '/etc' is an unqualified name.
>  Agreed.  How about this:
>    /etc/[fedora-ds|fds]/schema/{default,custom}
>  
Yep, that was what I meant, /etc/schema was typo :)

BR 
Kimmo

[Oscar A. Valdez]

El vie, 30-06-2006 a las 13:59 -0600, Richard Megginson escribió:
>  In order to be more linux friendly, we are currently considering 
>  changing the layout from having everything under /opt/fedora-ds to 
>  putting files in their FHS specific paths.  The details are here - 
>  http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/FHS_Packaging
>  
>  I've heard some pretty strong opinions for both moving to this and 
>  sticking to the current packaging model.  I'd like to open this debate 
>  up to the wider audience. 
1) FHS packaging will make life easier for system administrators.
2) In general, standards are "a good thing" (the FHS certainly is).

I vote for FHS packaging.
-- 
Oscar A. Valdez

[Dirk Kastens]

Richard Megginson schrieb:
>  In order to be more linux friendly, we are currently considering 
>  changing the layout from having everything under /opt/fedora-ds to 
>  putting files in their FHS specific paths.  The details are here - 
>  http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/FHS_Packaging 
I would leave it as it is. The IBM Directory Server, for example, also 
uses its own directory structure under /opt/IBM/ldap and creates 
symbolic links from the FHS directories to the ldap directories.
As others have mentioned, it's much easier to backup the software and to 
find errors etc.

Best wishes,

Dirk Kastens
Universitaet Osnabrueck, Rechenzentrum (Computer Center)
Albrechtstr. 28, 49069 Osnabrueck, Germany
Tel.: [phone], FAX: -2470