Directory draft (was Re: Triggers just to avoid unowned directories?)
Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silva...@gmail.com) said: Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base filesystem package. Then the guidelines should be fixed to create less confusion over the matter. Another precedence is with bash-completion -- the consensus is for packages that provide completion scripts to own /etc/bash_completion.d OK, I've written up the following, which should be more clear: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BillNottingham/DirectoryDraft Comments? Bill -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [Fedora-packaging] Directory draft (was Re: Triggers just to avoid unowned directories?)
On 09/02/2009 11:47 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silva...@gmail.com) said: Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base filesystem package. Then the guidelines should be fixed to create less confusion over the matter. Another precedence is with bash-completion -- the consensus is for packages that provide completion scripts to own /etc/bash_completion.d OK, I've written up the following, which should be more clear: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BillNottingham/DirectoryDraft Comments? Seems sane to me. ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Directory draft (was Re: Triggers just to avoid unowned directories?)
On 09/02/2009 08:47 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silva...@gmail.com) said: Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base filesystem package. Then the guidelines should be fixed to create less confusion over the matter. Another precedence is with bash-completion -- the consensus is for packages that provide completion scripts to own /etc/bash_completion.d OK, I've written up the following, which should be more clear: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BillNottingham/DirectoryDraft Section 1.3 Optional functoinality is a special case of Section 1.5 Common directory without one requiring the other. I'd combine them like this: Multiple packages have files in a common directory but none of them needs to require the others. An example: bash-completion owns the /etc/bash_completion.d directory and uses the files placed in there to configure itself git places files into /etc/bash_completion.d bzr places files into /etc/bash_completion.d Solution: Both the git and bzr packages should own the /etc/bash_completion.d directory as bash-completion is optional functionality and the installation of git or bzr should not force the installation of bash-completion. And one more idea to throw out there: How sacred is filesystem? How costly are adding new directories to it? For something like /etc/prelink.conf.d, adding to filesystem seems like the preferred option. If there's little cost involved, adding to filesystem for things like /etc/bash_completion.d also seems like the preferred solution. If there's no reason we shouldn't be expanding filesystem, I'd list that as an option in the directory draft as well. -Toshio signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Directory draft (was Re: Triggers just to avoid unowned directories?)
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said: Section 1.3 Optional functoinality is a special case of Section 1.5 Common directory without one requiring the other. I'd combine them like this: I've updated the proposal based on this and other feedback. And one more idea to throw out there: How sacred is filesystem? How costly are adding new directories to it? For something like /etc/prelink.conf.d, adding to filesystem seems like the preferred option. If there's little cost involved, adding to filesystem for things like /etc/bash_completion.d also seems like the preferred solution. If there's no reason we shouldn't be expanding filesystem, I'd list that as an option in the directory draft as well. My main objections would be: 1) filesystem started out as just the FHS dirs 2) We don't want a bunch of orphan directories if things like prelink change 3) We don't want to tie package submission on changes that would require updates on unrelated packages in older distributions. It's a combination of philosophical (#1) and practical (#2 and #3) concerns. We could expclitly state this in the draft if you want. Bill -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Directory draft (was Re: Triggers just to avoid unowned directories?)
Bill Nottingham wrote: 1) filesystem started out as just the FHS dirs Well, we could have filesystem with the FHS dirs and a new system-filesystem with the distro-specific ones. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Directory draft (was Re: Triggers just to avoid unowned directories?)
On 09/02/2009 03:27 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Bill Nottingham wrote: 1) filesystem started out as just the FHS dirs Well, we could have filesystem with the FHS dirs and a new system-filesystem with the distro-specific ones. Kevin Kofler That doesn't fix concerns 2 and 3 (snipped already), and introduces a bucket of its own philosophical features (why just one bucket of directories package? Why not 50?) --CJD -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Directory draft (was Re: Triggers just to avoid unowned directories?)
On 09/02/2009 09:03 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote: On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 11:47 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silva...@gmail.com) said: Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base filesystem package. Then the guidelines should be fixed to create less confusion over the matter. Another precedence is with bash-completion -- the consensus is for packages that provide completion scripts to own /etc/bash_completion.d OK, I've written up the following, which should be more clear: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BillNottingham/DirectoryDraft Comments? I think it would be good to expand this to include some guidance on -filesystem packages and when they are an appropriate solution. Especially since one of the examples cited solves this by way of a -filesystem package (mozilla-filesystem). -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list