Directory draft (was Re: Triggers just to avoid unowned directories?)

[Bill Nottingham]

Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silvanus(a)gmail.com) said: 
>  >> Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using
> triggers to
>  >> move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base
>  >> filesystem package.
>  >
>  > Then the guidelines should be fixed to create less confusion over the
>  > matter.
>  >
>  Another precedence is with bash-completion -- the consensus is for
>  packages that provide completion scripts to own /etc/bash_completion.d 
OK, I've written up the following, which should be more clear:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BillNottingham/DirectoryDraft

Comments?

Bill

[Tom Callaway]

On 09/02/2009 11:47 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>  Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silvanus(a)gmail.com) said: 
> >>> Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to
> >>> move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base
> >>> filesystem package.
> >>
> >> Then the guidelines should be fixed to create less confusion over the
> >> matter.
> >>
> > Another precedence is with bash-completion -- the consensus is for
> > packages that provide completion scripts to own /etc/bash_completion.d
>  
>  OK, I've written up the following, which should be more clear:
>  
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BillNottingham/DirectoryDraft
>  
>  Comments? 
Seems sane to me.

~spot

[Matthias Clasen]

On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 11:47 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>  Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silvanus(a)gmail.com) said: 
>  > >> Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to
>  > >> move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base
>  > >> filesystem package.
>  > >
>  > > Then the guidelines should be fixed to create less confusion over the
>  > > matter.
>  > >
>  > Another precedence is with bash-completion -- the consensus is for
>  > packages that provide completion scripts to own /etc/bash_completion.d
>  
>  OK, I've written up the following, which should be more clear:
>  
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BillNottingham/DirectoryDraft
>  
>  Comments? 
I think it would be good to expand this to include some guidance on
-filesystem packages and when they are an appropriate solution.

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 09/02/2009 05:47 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>  Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silvanus(a)gmail.com) said:
> >>> Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to
> >>> move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base
> >>> filesystem package.
> >>
> >> Then the guidelines should be fixed to create less confusion over the
> >> matter.
> >>
> > Another precedence is with bash-completion -- the consensus is for
> > packages that provide completion scripts to own /etc/bash_completion.d
>
>  OK, I've written up the following, which should be more clear:
>
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BillNottingham/DirectoryDraft
>
>  Comments? 
This proposal goes into the right direction. However I find it somewhat 
confusing, because it doesn't mention the actual rationales/motivations 
for when to apply "multiple owners" or "package deps"

(The rationale is strict and permanent package hierarchies
vs. "no or varying hierarchies")

Ralf

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On 09/02/2009 08:47 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>  Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silvanus(a)gmail.com) said: 
> >>> Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to
> >>> move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base
> >>> filesystem package.
> >>
> >> Then the guidelines should be fixed to create less confusion over the
> >> matter.
> >>
> > Another precedence is with bash-completion -- the consensus is for
> > packages that provide completion scripts to own /etc/bash_completion.d
>  
>  OK, I've written up the following, which should be more clear:
>  
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BillNottingham/DirectoryDraft
>   
Section 1.3 Optional functoinality is a special case of Section 1.5
Common directory without one requiring the other.  I'd combine them like
this:

"""
Multiple packages have files in a common directory but none of them
needs to require the others.

An example:

  bash-completion owns the /etc/bash_completion.d directory and uses the
files placed in there to configure itself

  git places files into /etc/bash_completion.d
  bzr places files into /etc/bash_completion.d

Solution: Both the git and bzr packages should own the
/etc/bash_completion.d directory as bash-completion is optional
functionality and the installation of git or bzr should not force the
installation of bash-completion.
"""

And one more idea to throw out there: How sacred is filesystem?  How
costly are adding new directories to it?  For something like
/etc/prelink.conf.d, adding to filesystem seems like the preferred
option.  If there's little cost involved, adding to filesystem for
things like /etc/bash_completion.d also seems like the preferred
solution.  If there's no reason we shouldn't be expanding filesystem,
I'd list that as an option in the directory draft as well.

-Toshio

[Bill Nottingham]

Toshio Kuratomi (a.badger(a)gmail.com) said: 
>  Section 1.3 Optional functoinality is a special case of Section 1.5
>  Common directory without one requiring the other.  I'd combine them like
>  this: 
I've updated the proposal based on this and other feedback.

>  And one more idea to throw out there: How sacred is filesystem?  How
>  costly are adding new directories to it?  For something like
>  /etc/prelink.conf.d, adding to filesystem seems like the preferred
>  option.  If there's little cost involved, adding to filesystem for
>  things like /etc/bash_completion.d also seems like the preferred
>  solution.  If there's no reason we shouldn't be expanding filesystem,
>  I'd list that as an option in the directory draft as well. 
My main objections would be:

1) filesystem started out as just the FHS dirs
2) We don't want a bunch of orphan directories if things like prelink
   change
3) We don't want to tie package submission on changes that would require
updates on unrelated packages in older distributions.

It's a combination of philosophical (#1) and practical (#2 and #3) concerns.
We could expclitly state this in the draft if you want.

Bill

[Christopher Aillon]

On 09/02/2009 09:03 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>  On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 11:47 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silvanus(a)gmail.com) said:
> >>>> Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to
> >>>> move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base
> >>>> filesystem package.
> >>>
> >>> Then the guidelines should be fixed to create less confusion over the
> >>> matter.
> >>>
> >> Another precedence is with bash-completion -- the consensus is for
> >> packages that provide completion scripts to own /etc/bash_completion.d
> >
> > OK, I've written up the following, which should be more clear:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BillNottingham/DirectoryDraft
> >
> > Comments?
>
>  I think it would be good to expand this to include some guidance on
>  -filesystem packages and when they are an appropriate solution. 
Especially since one of the examples cited solves this by way of a 
-filesystem package (mozilla-filesystem).