[Fedora-packaging] SCL discussion at yesterday's meeting, easy stuff

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 05:34:19PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 11/05/2013 04:42 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 04:34:47PM +0100, Honza Horak wrote:
> >>On 11/01/2013 08:28 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >>>A straw poll was taken about the filesystem location of SCLs.  A few FPC
> >>>members were willing to use /opt but others were heavily opposed to it.
> >>>Everyone was okay with using /usr/scl (or the plural form /usr/scls).  So
> >>>I think that needs to become the scl root dir (is that the right term?) for
> >>>Fedora.
> >>>
> >>>FPC was okay with the idea that third parties might use /usr/scl as well.
> >>>I didn't bring this up at the meeting but one thing that influences me on
> >>>this is that scls are inherently rpm managed and therefore mixing both our
> >>>scls with third party scls does not seem like the same vendor-OS problem
> >>>that /opt was designed to fix.
> >>I feel the need to add my POV about choosing /usr/scl for SCL prefix.
> >>FHS states: "/usr is the second major section of the filesystem. /usr
> >>is shareable, read-only data. That means that /usr should be
> >>shareable between various FHS-compliant hosts and must not be written
> >>to. Any information that is host-specific or varies with time is
> >>stored elsewhere." [1]
> >>
> >>That seems to me like a no-go for having /usr/scl as a prefix for
> >>SCLs, because there surely are packages that need to write some
> >>files, probably not only databases. So I'd also vote for /opt since
> >>there are no such requirements.
> >>
> >>[1] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEUSRHIERARCHY
> >>
> >Although I favor /opt, this is not one of the reasons.  Our interpretation
> >of /opt is that we also cannot depend on it being read-write and
> >host-specific.  It looks like fhs developed /opt to be a vendor-friendly
> >version of /usr.
> In my understanding, this is exactly what you want (/opt/fedora or
> may-be /opt/scl/<more>)
> 
Yep, that was my argument for why /opt made sense.

> >   Therefore it is also read-only and shareable.  The
> >reasoning stems from FHS's decision to separate read-write and host-specific
> >information from /opt:
> >
> >"""
> >Package files that are variable (change in normal operation) must be
> >installed in /var/opt. See the section on /var/opt for more information.
> >
> >Host-specific configuration files must be installed in /etc/opt. See the
> >section on /etc for more information.
> >"""
> >
> >http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#OPTADDONAPPLICATIONSOFTWAREPACKAGES
> >
> >As stated in my Filesystem Location Part 2 email:
> >https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2013-November/009717.html
> >
> >"we also noted that no matter whether /usr or /opt was used, config files
> >would still need to be placed somewhere under /etc and state files somewhere
> >under /var."
> Correct - What is you problem with this?
> 
No problem from me -- this is entirely sensible.  I was pointing out to
Honza Horak that /opt and /usr are similar in this regard and therefore
either solution would need supplemental directory trees in /etc and /var to
suit our needs.

-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/packaging/attachments/20131105/f03679a9/attachment.sig>