On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:50 PM Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 16:05 +0000, Alejandro Del Castillo wrote: > > > > On 3/5/19 12:11 AM, ChenQi wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > > > Recently I'm dealing with issue from which some discussion raises. > > > I'd like to ask why update-alternatives from opkg-utils chooses > > > /usr/lib > > > to hold its alternatives database? > > > I looked into debian, its update-alternatives chooses /var/lib by > > > default. > > > Is there some design consideration? Or some historical reason? > > > > Update-alternatives used to be on the opkg repo. I did a search > > there > > all the way to the first commit on 2008-12-15 [1], but even then > > /usr/lib was used. I can't think of a design consideration that > > would > > make /usr/lib more palatable than the Debian default. > > > > Maybe someone with more knowledge of the previous history can chime > > in? > > > > [1] > > http://git.yoctoproject.org/clean/cgit.cgi/opkg/commit/?id=8bf49d16a637cca0cd116450dfcabc4c941baf6c > > I think the history is that the whole of /var was considered volatile > and we wanted the alternatives data to stick around so it was put under > /usr. > > That decision doesn't really make sense now since only parts of /var > are volatile.. >
I don't use opkg (or in fact any package manager on a target), but I do use OSTree, where my /var isn't part of what gets deployed to a device (https://ostree.readthedocs.io/en/latest/manual/adapting-existing/#adapting-existing-package-managers) so having the option to keep it in /usr would be important to anyone who has mechanisms like that. -- Alex Kiernan -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto