On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, John Dennis wrote:

| On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 13:59 -0600, Richard Megginson wrote: | > In order to be more linux friendly, we are currently considering | > changing the layout from having everything under /opt/fedora-ds to | > putting files in their FHS specific paths. The details are here - | > http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/FHS_Packaging | > | > I've heard some pretty strong opinions for both moving to this and | > sticking to the current packaging model. I'd like to open this debate | > up to the wider audience. | | I think it's a good idea to move to an FHS layout, not only will this | make directory server fit in with the rest of our packages but it will | also aid in SELinux policy which makes strong assumptions about location | in FHS directories.

I'm on the fence about this. I think you have good points. I also see where mj@sci.fi is coming from, too. Fedora DS isn't the only piece of software that is a bundle unto itself. Apache Tomcat comes to mind. As for an SELinux policy, one can be created that fits the current directory and file layout. If a policy is going to be created, I would think that it would be just as easy (or difficult) to create one for an FHS layout as it would be for the current layout. You could always make a separate, FHS-specific package available and see what people think. If the votes are high enough in support of the new layout then you could make a permanent switch. The only thing I would suggest, assuming you decide to roll out a package for this layout, is to ensure directory naming consistency. I see that you've proposed to have an /etc/fedora-ds directory. However, for the 'fds-admin' package you also have an /etc/fds directory. You should pick either '/etc/fedora-ds' or '/etc/fds' and stick with it. Having a fragmented naming scheme would defeat part of the purpose of adopting a new layout.

Michael

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Kimmo Koivisto wrote:

| Richard Megginson wrote: | > In order to be more linux friendly, we are currently considering | > changing the layout from having everything under /opt/fedora-ds to | > putting files in their FHS specific paths. The details are here - | > http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/FHS_Packaging | > | How about default schema files under /etc/schema, are these files common to | all instaces or just skeleton files that are used when new instance is | created?

I don't agree with this. '/etc/schema' is an arbitrary location whose name does not belie its purpose. In other words, a 'schema' directory that resides directly beneath '/etc' is an unqualified name.

| Having fixed directory for common schema files would be nice, easier to add | and remove custom schema files.

Agreed. How about this: /etc/[fedora-ds|fds]/schema/{default,custom}

That way, there would be no question about where to place custom schema files.

Michael

| -- | Fedora-directory-users mailing list | Fedora-directory-users@redhat.com | https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users