On Wed, Jan 12, 2022, at 4:05 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 02:53:52PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Should /usr be independently portable? And is that with a version
> matched /opt, or can there be mix and match revisions of /usr and
> /opt?
We have three similar locations: /usr (system vendor tree),
/usr/local (admin non-packages installations), /opt (external vendor tree).
In other words, both /usr and /opt are for packages, but from different
sources. As an admin, you'd want to treat both package types the same,
and e.g. roll them back together. So having a separate tree for /opt
doesn't make much sense.
[At some point in the future] /opt should be renamed to /usr/opt and
symlinked for backwards compat.
Unfortunately, real world RPMs that install into /opt also have e.g. log files in
/opt/somesoftware/log, not /var/log/somesoftware. So it can't be underneath the
read-only /usr mount. This is why rpm-ostree just straight up rejects RPMs that install
into /opt.
https://github.com/coreos/rpm-ostree/issues/233
I think I agree with Chris that really what we want is a separate rpmdb for this. That
would mean these packages don't participate in offline transactional updates,
can't be rolled back etc.