9base in Fedora?

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 12:23:42AM +0200, Petr Sabata wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:16:02AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:24:08AM +0200, Petr Sabata wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:19:43AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:23:44PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > > > > As I understand it, the best way to do this in Fedora, with respect to
> > > > > > same ideas in this thread, would be having %{_libexecdir}/plan9 or similar,
> > > > > > with bin, lib and share (or whatever upstream supplies) subdirectories.
> > > > > You understood it wrong, %{_libexecdir}/plan9 should contain only binaries
> > > > > and nothing else, the rest would go into %{_libdir}/plan9.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't understand why exactly %{_libexecdir}/plan9/* would be preferable to
> > > > the more-straightforward /usr/bin/plan9/*. Generally, programs that are in
> > > > libexec are meant to _not_ be executed directly, which is not the case here.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > That would indeed be better, I guess.
> > > It's okay with both FHS 2.3 and our current Guidelines (or maybe I'm just
> > > missing something), rpmlint complains about %{_bindir} subdirectory, though.
> > > 
> > > (...)
> > > 9base.x86_64: E: subdir-in-bin /usr/bin/plan9/dc
> > > The package contains a subdirectory in /usr/bin. It's not permitted to create
> > > a subdir there. Create it in /usr/lib/ instead.
> > > (...)
> > > 
> > > I'm going to update the package review since this more like an rpmlint issue.
> > > 
> > I just got back from FUDCon Panama so I may have read a few things too
> > quickly... What's the use case for these programs?
> > 
> > Just for scripts?
> > 
> > For users that are used to plan9 behaviour and want to use them from their
> > shell?
> 
> Pretty much those. Plus they are fun to play with.
> 
So, to be clear, you're saying this is just for the latter (users that want
to have plan9 behaviour) and not the former (for scripts)?

I'm sorry I haven't taken a look at your spec file -- does the latest
incarnation place the binaries in some non-PATH directory and then have
prefixed symlinks to those binaries in /usr/bin?

> > 
> > Either %{_libdir}/plan9 or %{_libdir}/plan9 + %{_libexecdir}/plan9 split
> > seem that they may fit the bill here.  One of those may be more right than
> > the other depending on what use case we're trying to support.
> > 
> > Subdirectories of %{_bindir} really should not be used in Fedora.
> 
> But why exactly?
>
subdirectories of /bin are prohibited by the FHS.  The subdirectories that
may be located in /usr/bin by the FHS are there specifically for
compatibilities sake for two selected subsystems (mh and X11R6).
Subdirectories of bin directories don't make any more sense than any other
directory as they are not added to the PATH by default and thus are not
user invokable progams without further modification to the environment.
Placing binaries that are not to be in the default PATH are better placed in
a more standard location (either libexecdir or libdir depending on the
use-case).  Subdirectories of /usr/bin are just plain non-standard
locations.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110531/2b41daaa/attachment.bin