On 26 August 2016 at 12:58, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 26 August 2016 at 06:00, Daniel Letai <dani(a)letai.org.il>
wrote:
>
>
> On 08/25/2016 11:40 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> Perhaps you could explain exactly what you want to propose here again?
> Just epel6? or 7 as well? Do you have co-maintainers in case you get
> busy, etc?
>
> I propose adding several gnu packages (namely gcc, binutils and gdb) with
> versions following those supplied by fedora, specifically for epel6, but
> possibly for epel7 if requested.
>
> This could hold a pattern such as /opt/gnu/[gcc|binutils|gdb]/<version>/ to
> allow several version to co-exist.
> I don't have any co-maintainers, but I mainly get busy in my day job, which
> happens to be the reason I maintain those packages.
>
OK there were multiple reasons there were reservations for this:
1) /opt/gnu (and many other /opt/*) names are already in use by many
site admistrators. Putting our packages in there and over-writing
locally compiled apps is going to cause problems. [Remember rpm will
overwrite /opt/gnu/gcc/5.0/bin/gcc if it wasn't in the rpm db before
hand without any report of a conflict.]
In reading some of the FESCO tickets, we can't use /opt/gnu because we
are not the GNU organization.
https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch03s13.html
We would need to use the /opt/fedora or go through the process of
becoming an entity that the
LANANA.org people would recognize.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.