Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: avrdude -Software for programming Atmel AVR Microcontroller
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230324
------- Additional Comments From rc040203@freenet.de 2007-02-28 11:53 EST ------- (In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #11)
(In reply to comment #10)
(In reply to comment #9)
Because its unnecessary deviating from upstream, upstreams docs / FAQ's mailinglist advice will say look at / edit /etc/avrdude.conf and it won't be
there. Now you've lost me. Upstream lack of insight/experience as argument ?!?
No staying close to upstream as argument al by itself,
We are supposed to be system integrators. It's our job to integrate/customize a package in such a way it fits best (what ever this means) into a system. This exactly is the reason why configure scripts exist and why configure scripts supply a --sysconfdir option. It's our job to choose what we think is best.
My experience tells me /etc/<file> is a mistake, because many other packages commited the same mistake before and regretted it.
just like we want to use the upstream <prefix>/<target> dir for gcc cross compilers amongst other things to not deviate from upstream.
Nope, not deviating from upstream is not the point wrt. <prefix>/target
The real reasons are * prefix/target is an established defacto standard for > decade, predating the FHS/LSB. * like many other "exotic" items and details it is missing from the FHS/LSB. * prefix/target is not a configuration item. It's hard-coded and almost impossible to change.
I'd be more than pleased to see this changed, but ... it's simply non-trivial and non-realistic.
Now if upstream but the config file under /usr/etc I would the first to say @#$% upstream and move that file to a better place, but there is _nothing_ wrong with upstream's placing in this case, so why move it and confuse users?
Cf. above. It's our job.