On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 8:52 AM Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2021 at 10:19, 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:
>
I am in agreement here and think that this is NOT a change to be made in F36 but needs to
be worked through the proper channels of 'upstream'. Get the FHS updated and
fixed, work out that the change actually is going to be stuck to in SuSE and not rolled
back and then push it to Fedora.
It's actually /usr/lib not /usr that applies here.
https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04s06.html
And it's been worked through proper upstream channels for 4+ years.
Location
http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/2017-October/006722.html
FHS question
http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/2017-October/006697.html
There's a bunch of back and forth throughout. The rpmdb isn't really
variable data. It's static data that describes other static data.
--
Chris Murphy