On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 8:00 AM Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk(a)suse.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Dusty Mabe:
>
> > The opensuse team reached out to us before to try to collaborate on a path
forward
> > for configuration files. They proposed this upstream to the fhs-discuss mailing
list [1].
> > Now they have made a decision [2].
> >
> > Should we try to join them?
> >
> > [1]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/fhs-discuss/2019-June/000509....
> > [2]
https://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-packaging/2019-08/msg00002.html
>
> I already pointed out that /usr/etc and /etc with totally different
> purposes is confusing after UsrMove. I'm not sure why this point, while
> acknowledged initially, was ignored in the end.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
=> /etc is a directory, not a symlink to /usr/etc.
We couldn't find any definition of UsrMove, where /etc is a symlink
to /usr/etc. Could be very well that somebody did it, but not by
definition.
More important was, that the absolut majority of people who gave
feedback wanted /usr/etc, and the acceptance by many users wass more
important than a few people where /etc is a symlink to /usr/etc.
If the majority does not like the path, they will not follow. So the
idea would be already fail on start.
And you can just remove the /etc symlink and make it an own directory
again, it should just work.
So we did not ignore it, but this sounded more like a theoretical
problem and not a real one.
A small update here, I've merged the new %_distconfdir macro into
rpm-config-SUSE[1], and Thorsten has restored /usr/etc to openSUSE's
filesystem package[2].
Do we want to do the same on the Fedora side? I can easily prepare the
PRs for filesystem and redhat-rpm-config...
[1]:
https://github.com/openSUSE/rpm-config-SUSE/pull/15
[2]:
https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/724754
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!