On 12/30/21 09:02, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 8:19 AM Tom Hughes via devel
> <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >
> > I don't see how this is FHS compliant, which in turn would make
> > it non-compliant with Fedora Packaging Guidelines, namely:
> >
> >
> >
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_filesystem_la...
> >
> > The FHS describes /usr here:
> >
> >
https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04.html#purpose18
> >
> > as "/usr is shareable, read-only data" which clearly does not
> > apply to a database that changes.
>
> In practice it is read-only data, except when software is being
> installed or updated. The FHS is a PITA sometimes, but it's not
> advocating for systems that can't be updated or changed..
>
The rpmdb has traditionally been like that, but it doesn't mean it will stay
that way forever more. There are all manner of currently unimplemented
use-cases which would require changing the database outside a direct
install/update/erase context. Many of those use-cases are related to files
and would fall under "but you need writable fs for that anyway" but not all.
Of course it'll always be *mostly* read-only data because of the nature of
the data, compared to a general purpose db in /var.
Can you provide an example for such feature requests? i.e. where the
rpmdb should be writable even though /usr is assumed to be immutable?
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering, Berlin