9base in Fedora?

nodata lsof at nodata.co.uk
Tue May 24 07:50:50 UTC 2011


On 20/05/11 14:17, Petr Sabata wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> I've been thinking about packaging 9base [1], a port of Plan 9 userspace tools,
> for Fedora. I'm interested in opinions on what style is "better" and why.
>
> The problem is most of 9base binaries (and their manpages)  have the same
> name as their coreutils (and other) equivalents, therefore we need to install
> them to somewhere else. Upstream suggests installing all its directories (bin,
> share, lib, ...) into /usr/local. This is not acceptable for obvious reasons.
>
> Options:
>
>      #1, aka the Gentoo way
>      Gentoo installs its 9base package into /usr/plan9, basically not touching
>      9base files at all. This collides with FHS and therefore would require an
>      exception in Packaging Guidelines.
>
>      #2, aka the Debian way
>      Debian installs its 9base package into /usr/lib. Well, most of it. They
>      also prefix all the manpages with 'plan9-', not the binaries, though.
>      This placement (provided we use %{_libdir}) introduces issues for Plan
>      9 rc shell scripts and their shebangs.
>
>      #3, aka the Fedora way?
>      Should we do this in some other way?
>
>
> I personally like the #1 better since it's more clean (except for the required
> FHS exception) and more or less aligned with upstream.
>
> [1] http://tools.suckless.org/9base
>
>

What does busybox do?


More information about the devel mailing list