Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2012-12-19)

[Kevin Kofler]

Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Unit files need to be in /, so moving them would either require creating
> a /share for distributions that haven't merged /usr or putting up with
> inconsistent naming between distributions. Consistency is a virtue and
> the chances of getting anyone else to accept /share are minimal, so /lib
> it is. Meanwhile, libexec's not part of any non-draft version of the FHS
> and doesn't exist on most other distributions, and the path of the
> helper binaries has ended up in a bunch of unit files. So, similar
> problems.
> 
> What benefit do you see in modifying systemd?

Consistency WITHIN FEDORA, which should be worlds more important than 
consistency with other distros, which frankly I don't give a darn about.

As for libexec, the FHS explicitly allows lib* under the multilib clause and 
there's nothing banning * = exec there, so IMHO libexec is already compliant 
to the letter of the FHS. If the other distros refuse to accept that, that's 
their problem. Systemd should just require it upstream. libexec is also part 
of the GNU file system conventions, so it wouldn't just be systemd. If 
systemd upstream refuses to do that, the systemd maintainers should be 
forced to change it in Fedora.

And a /share also makes a lot of sense for distros which have a separate 
/usr. There too, systemd should just require it upstream, but again, if they 
refuse to do that, they should be forced to change it in Fedora.

Being strict there might actually end up getting our sane layout enforced 
through systemd upstream, rather than having it diluted in the name of 
consistency with other distros. And if it doesn't, it's too bad for the 
other distros, why should we care?

        Kevin Kofler