Need advice on using a new directory in the root hierarchy

[Michel Alexandre Salim]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

I've just submitted a review request[1] for Nix[2], a purely
functional package manager.

Nix uses the /nix directory by default for essential operations -- its
package store, for instance, is located at /nix/store by default, and
it's local state in /nix/var.

These can be overridden at compile time, however, doing so makes it
impossible to use pre-built binaries[3] provided in Nix channels
(repositories).

As such, it seems that this is a justifiable case for creating a new
directory under root  -- cf. the introduction of /run, as documented
in Fedora 15's release notes[4]:

    This change is compliant with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard,
    which allows distributions to create new directories in the root
    hierarchy as long as there is careful consideration of the
    consequences.

I posit that compatibility with a vast amount of pre-built binaries,
and the reduced usefulness of the tool without this compatibility
(anyone who has used MacPorts, with its lack of pre-built binaries,
would sympathize).

Should I create an FPC ticket for this?

[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827289
[2]: http://nixos.org/nix/
[3]: http://hydra.nixos.org/build/2657151/download/1/manual/#id523917
[4]:
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/15/html/Release_Notes/sect-Rel...

Thanks in advance,

- -- 
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/

Email:  salimma(a)fedoraproject.org  | GPG key ID: A36A937A
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de       | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net

()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPyZIKAAoJEEr1VKujapN6Am8H/3YjBVTOC50uTwX+sUgfHcaq
> nofCNitD29Dz8/y1Zt+1/Y9aWPTl64Mx9Cwgug8pcv5zJCiXU6nMlWQ+4OsHdVb4
> XSyOHR1gwtnh+tfV46y3wG4NYwjm0x2+7Ti+55mrmEpOT5FSGHVb3AHamBb91s9s
> 2JNb2LxSPDAZc9l9G4Qe+wRwUvoGKFtjOnTi91bC6OzYq7qvAbCwQHPGKSjZt3EH
> jAU0xAHIp/OeHudJLohDAdU8Ma8r9XQVKIGOrtw80DvpPtAIHPvPdjNebLOSMpwg
> XspMl68Fgy3CY/fcSAdtRBZKlN+8UGEoCYsgFz1LZBs5lNytUyF/KfliPKllA+Y=
> =oI1K
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:09:46AM +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>  
>  Hello,
>  
>  I've just submitted a review request[1] for Nix[2], a purely
>  functional package manager.
>  
>  Nix uses the /nix directory by default for essential operations -- its
>  package store, for instance, is located at /nix/store by default, and
>  it's local state in /nix/var.
>  
>  These can be overridden at compile time, however, doing so makes it
>  impossible to use pre-built binaries[3] provided in Nix channels
>  (repositories).
>  
>  As such, it seems that this is a justifiable case for creating a new
>  directory under root  -- cf. the introduction of /run, as documented
>  in Fedora 15's release notes[4]:
>  
>      This change is compliant with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard,
>      which allows distributions to create new directories in the root
>      hierarchy as long as there is careful consideration of the
>      consequences.
>  
>  I posit that compatibility with a vast amount of pre-built binaries,
>  and the reduced usefulness of the tool without this compatibility
>  (anyone who has used MacPorts, with its lack of pre-built binaries,
>  would sympathize).
>  
>  Should I create an FPC ticket for this?
>  
>  [1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827289
>  [2]: http://nixos.org/nix/
>  [3]: http://hydra.nixos.org/build/2657151/download/1/manual/#id523917
>  [4]:
>
> http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/15/html/Release_Notes/sect-Rel...
>   
Yes, but unless the FPC is willing to abandon the FHS I think it will be
a close or negative vote.

Also, there was talk about whether Fedora should allow alternate package
managers (meaning system-wide package managers that work with formats that
are not rpm ie: dpkg or apt-get that works with .debs [not the apt-get rpm
port].)  I do not remember what the decision was there.

Lastly, the release notes do not accurately reflect the reason that the FPC
chose to allow /run.

-Toshio

[Michel Alexandre Salim]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/02/2012 11:45 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>  On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:09:46AM +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim
>  wrote:
> > As such, it seems that this is a justifiable case for creating a
> > new directory under root  -- cf. the introduction of /run, as
> > documented in Fedora 15's release notes[4]:
> > 
> > This change is compliant with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, 
> > which allows distributions to create new directories in the root 
> > hierarchy as long as there is careful consideration of the 
> > consequences.
> > 
> > I posit that compatibility with a vast amount of pre-built
> > binaries, and the reduced usefulness of the tool without this
> > compatibility (anyone who has used MacPorts, with its lack of
> > pre-built binaries, would sympathize).
> > 
> > Should I create an FPC ticket for this?
>  Yes, but unless the FPC is willing to abandon the FHS I think it
>  will be a close or negative vote.
>   
OK, I probably shouldn't try then if there's almost no chance of it
going through. So this should be something for RPM Fusion, I suppose?
(under the "packages that are FLOSS and has no legal issue but are not
allowed by packaging standards, e.g. kmod kernel modules)

>  Also, there was talk about whether Fedora should allow alternate
>  package managers (meaning system-wide package managers that work
>  with formats that are not rpm ie: dpkg or apt-get that works with
>  .debs [not the apt-get rpm port].)  I do not remember what the
>  decision was there.
>   
Hmm. While alternate package managers that install to locations that
would conflict with the default package manager (which would be the
case with dpkg), nix just creates symlinks in the user directory --
people have been running it on Debian/Ubuntu with no problem. It's
less intrusive than even MacPorts, and is about the same as, say,
python-pip and zeroinstall-injector.

I'd argue it in an FPC meeting if it's just the concern about
alternate package managers, but the /nix layout is probably a
deal-breaker.

>  Lastly, the release notes do not accurately reflect the reason that
>  the FPC chose to allow /run. 
Ah. I *was* a bit surprised to find that rationale there, ISTR the
debate was a bit more heated there.

Thanks,

- -- 
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/

Email:  salimma(a)fedoraproject.org  | GPG key ID: A36A937A
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de       | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net

()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPyadAAAoJEEr1VKujapN6IqcH/35QT1yeOe+uK/aXm7rP3FTQ
> yYbxsVKQDrv3YFvePed2HyjJFWPVhb6XonbXk/fauPE7j2DMwQGEVNlnOsawsZZF
> OsOt8RDcXsVldz9vFsjNOtE/SabY9bWYky9k2plG03xTOkJLa92qGZiK5vv/+SF+
> nJI+UyFFtmtZ2IXzRy7loIW19jW9eC8k5l6Gn+AvoNca++IjHZfn6WVBEAz0DF/x
> aQ1GJDNa9qTp/h4lKeG8fzWK94IMGHsjLiR7Le75Dygd9saCxSk00h9Ieh48++p5
> escjFMsPhxPnPfJR9K9OEaJkNxj+F5zQCyWl+V9HWxD5l6uZYh7okANG7vUBU/A=
> =J+eA
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 06/02/2012 07:40 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  On 06/02/2012 11:45 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:09:46AM +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim
> > wrote:
> >> As such, it seems that this is a justifiable case for creating a
> >> new directory under root  -- cf. the introduction of /run, as
> >> documented in Fedora 15's release notes[4]:
> >>
> >> This change is compliant with the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard,
> >> which allows distributions to create new directories in the root
> >> hierarchy as long as there is careful consideration of the
> >> consequences.
> >>
> >> I posit that compatibility with a vast amount of pre-built
> >> binaries, and the reduced usefulness of the tool without this
> >> compatibility (anyone who has used MacPorts, with its lack of
> >> pre-built binaries, would sympathize).
> >>
> >> Should I create an FPC ticket for this?
> > Yes, but unless the FPC is willing to abandon the FHS I think it
> > will be a close or negative vote.
> >
>  OK, I probably shouldn't try then if there's almost no chance of it
>  going through. So this should be something for RPM Fusion, I suppose? 
RPM Fusion is supposed to follow the Fedora packing rules.
=> This would not be an option for you.

> > Also, there was talk about whether Fedora should allow alternate
> > package managers (meaning system-wide package managers that work
> > with formats that are not rpm ie: dpkg or apt-get that works with
> > .debs [not the apt-get rpm port].)  I do not remember what the
> > decision was there. 
I don't recall such discussion. I recall a general
discussion 
interaction with some language's "installers" (Python, ruby (gems), etc).

With regard to them, there had been consensus of "all installers" must 
properly interact with rpm", esp. must all installations they excercise 
be reflected into rpm's db.

IMO, the same consideration applies to "alternative package installers".
In particular, do several, separate, independent installation db's not 
make any sense.

> > Lastly, the release notes do not accurately reflect the reason
> that
> > the FPC chose to allow /run. 
Well, ... unfortunately, yes.

I can live with this decision (It's not worth to make a fuzz about it), 
nevertheless, I consider this decision to be a serious mistake and would 
be highly in favor of it being revisited and be reverted.

Ralf

[Michel Alexandre Salim]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/04/2012 09:49 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>  On 06/02/2012 07:40 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > On 06/02/2012 11:45 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:09:46AM +0700, Michel Alexandre
> >> Salim wrote:
> >>> As such, it seems that this is a justifiable case for
> >>> creating a new directory under root  -- cf. the introduction
> >>> of /run, as documented in Fedora 15's release notes[4]:
> >>> 
> >>> This change is compliant with the Filesystem Hierarchy
> >>> Standard, which allows distributions to create new
> >>> directories in the root hierarchy as long as there is careful
> >>> consideration of the consequences.
> >>> 
> >>> I posit that compatibility with a vast amount of pre-built 
> >>> binaries, and the reduced usefulness of the tool without
> >>> this compatibility (anyone who has used MacPorts, with its
> >>> lack of pre-built binaries, would sympathize).
> >>> 
> >>> Should I create an FPC ticket for this?
> >> Yes, but unless the FPC is willing to abandon the FHS I think
> >> it will be a close or negative vote.
> >> 
> > OK, I probably shouldn't try then if there's almost no chance of
> > it going through. So this should be something for RPM Fusion, I
> > suppose?
>  
>  RPM Fusion is supposed to follow the Fedora packing rules. => This
>  would not be an option for you.
>   
Thanks. They do allow akmods though, so I'm not sure exactly where
they draw the line. But I think I should take into account the
possibility that it won't get in there either, and maintain a separate
repo for it (*not* on fedorapeople, of course)

> >> Also, there was talk about whether Fedora should allow
> >> alternate package managers (meaning system-wide package
> >> managers that work with formats that are not rpm ie: dpkg or
> >> apt-get that works with .debs [not the apt-get rpm port].)  I
> >> do not remember what the decision was there.
>  I don't recall such discussion. I recall a general discussion 
>  interaction with some language's "installers" (Python, ruby (gems),
>  etc).
>  
>  With regard to them, there had been consensus of "all installers"
>  must properly interact with rpm", esp. must all installations they
>  excercise be reflected into rpm's db.
>   
Python's doesn't, I thought? There is some integration but it's the
other way around -- that RPM-provided Python modules are "seen" by
easy_install and pip.

>  IMO, the same consideration applies to "alternative package
>  installers". In particular, do several, separate, independent
>  installation db's not make any sense.
>  
> >> Lastly, the release notes do not accurately reflect the reason
> >> that the FPC chose to allow /run.
>  Well, ... unfortunately, yes.
>  
>  I can live with this decision (It's not worth to make a fuzz about
>  it), nevertheless, I consider this decision to be a serious mistake
>  and would be highly in favor of it being revisited and be
>  reverted.
>   
I personally think they could have just used /var/run for that ...

Thanks,

- -- 
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/

Email:  salimma(a)fedoraproject.org  | GPG key ID: A36A937A
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de       | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net

()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPzDuXAAoJEEr1VKujapN6M6IH/1O0riyX4Dhl8Uo4+nPRBz48
> 52MuTsMkAlG0TuiTod0PhDhShsgIRbDcSBBDErc2mZiV0SKIBAT3OszzG9QfXB6G
> 7GZ1ktJ86UcRxm+EtdTclp6aVEtpc9VrfcKBy4Ua0OlNPViPzqXi3+IRT75Fz3ZV
> nwhbkaTBeSwGS6pOQZ3qBqdn/pFZT/GQaZBK7QEGSo4kjVgqrOKVS1almmFJ4Y/B
> JIg1Kec7HyAXzASbdjU+bBTQqw1giPQD5eICqx+vaO+3Pg3N3aDsE5aRNdyVMj1Y
> Gecn7WLJ6VXA9Nlld6zoqGYuwX6xgialZfXunVW/+t4wFWR6OuKQ49AhVZzkNBg=
> =Nu9R
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Michel Alexandre Salim]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/02/2012 11:45 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>  On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 11:09:46AM +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim
>  wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I've just submitted a review request[1] for Nix[2], a purely 
> > functional package manager.
> > 
> > Nix uses the /nix directory by default for essential operations
> > -- its package store, for instance, is located at /nix/store by
> > default, and it's local state in /nix/var.
> >  
...
> > Should I create an FPC ticket for this?
> > 
> > [1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827289 [2]:
> > http://nixos.org/nix/ [3]:
> > http://hydra.nixos.org/build/2657151/download/1/manual/#id523917 
> > [4]: 
> >
> http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/15/html/Release_Notes/sect-Rel...
> >
>
> >  
Yes, but unless the FPC is willing to abandon the FHS I think it will be
>  a close or negative vote.
>   
Filed a ticket:

  https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/180

Will take it to RPM Fusion if the request is voted down; at the very
least there'd be a precedent for similar packages.

Thanks,

- -- 
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/

Email:  salimma(a)fedoraproject.org  | GPG key ID: A36A937A
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de       | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net

()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPyb2sAAoJEEr1VKujapN6MaoIAI/rZ2fI38Vm5NLw3H5hrsBK
> pe+qqv0pKNQDe0fi7B31JCb97DX/6ynV8yLp//Ia8BZiOyFcgHwBENXEAlhePyFf
> HEqykJnhTNdMtPCSeNW16HndKfQQeBCuC3SAk58WQ7Hopd6xjjI0HrOAc+q/kXaj
> n+6Q237pDzVlo6xldWB8DtZxi9R82V/mS2oC+Vl7Q3vzmeJGZTxVhTelyIYBlcGa
> t6dx28ox1dFVD1zno2/LfA9NNwMq/CjHVGs3tY2NJb3Nx/2oFnJJz0eSn6nEdNJ7
> 9+SLszwVaeurypreG37QLeNb0rBoVd4yZyD49HyfgSMHCN/6a58pXm5/W/3VQic=
> =ifMI
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----