Directory draft (was Re: Triggers just to avoid unowned directories?)

2009-09-02 Thread Bill Nottingham
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?)

2009-09-02 Thread Tom spot Callaway
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?)

2009-09-02 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
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?)

2009-09-02 Thread Bill Nottingham
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?)

2009-09-02 Thread Kevin Kofler
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?)

2009-09-02 Thread Casey Dahlin
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?)

2009-09-02 Thread Christopher Aillon

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