9base in Fedora?

[Petr Sabata]

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.

> 
> 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?

-- 
# Petr Sabata
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110601/4d9b4f19/attachment.bin